Mad as Hell

I just saw this in the NY Times.
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/03/science/social/03JAME.html" target="_blank">Experts Question Authenticity of Bone Box for 'Brother of Jesus'</a>

Daniel_AnglumTM

I think that it is genuine personally in that the inscription is genuine, it is not a very profitable forgery if it is one in that it says too little for it to be clearly connected with the Jesus and James. However it is a coincidence and i dont usually believe in coincidences....

Toto

There would be a certain amount of poetic justice if the inscription were proven to be a forgery in time to scotch the sales of the Shanks-Witherington book.

godfry n. glad

1. I'm not about to give out my name, address and email to another commercial venture that can sell it to anybody they wish... Would you mind posting the citation for the NYT?

2. I've posted it once, and I'll post it again: Why was L.Y. Rahmani not consulted?

3. Why is there such a paucity of information coming out of the three (count 'em, three!) conferences of biblical/ancient Levantine scholars that convened in Toronto shortly after the opening of the ossuary showing at Royal Ontario Museum? It's almost as if there is a conspiracy to cover up the proceedings....or did the conventioneers slink away in shamed silence?

godfry n. glad

Toto

Do you mean this?

"Experts Question Authenticity of Bone Box for `Brother of Jesus'" By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

New York Times December 3, 2002
in the Science section - page ?

I suspect that most of the scholars at the conferences recognized correctly that a lot more scientific testing, study and analysis are needed before they shoot off their mouths. Also a lot of reporters are on vacation now.

Toto

More articles:

The NYTimes article is available free <a href="http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/4653069.htm" target="_blank">here</a>

<a href="http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/local/daily/1203jesus.html" target="_blank">Experts question burial box script </a>

<a href="http://www.christiantimes.com/Articles/Articles%20Dec02/Art_Dec02_07.html" target="_blank">Ossuary owner criticized for box’s damage; questions surface about item’s authenticity</a>

godfry n. glad

Toto did ask:

I'm not quite sure whether you mean the last question, one of the other two questions, or all three questions, but yes, I "meant that", although the statement with question 3 is laden with a smidgen of hyperbole.

Thanks for the alternate URLs and the redacted article. I naively input my data in one of those NYT forms over a year and a half ago and I've been trying to extract myself from the resultant pestilential postings ever since. I have access to the hardcopy NYT every morning (but it's not mine, so I have to do "surgical strike" readings, rather than bivouac on it) and if I have reasonably accurate citations, I can read what I need.

quoth Toto again:

I agree with you that given the flap that has followed BAR publication of Lemaire's misguided claims, fellow experts are being a lot more circumspect. Even these new articles don't have any real new information from the "biblical experts". They must be torn by the countervaling desires to publish first and to avoid "stepping on the academic land mine" of shooting their mouth off before having all the facts and having it come back and bite them on the ass.

However, I find it ever so interesting that in other, reputedly more scholarly lists (XTalk2, for instance) there has been next to nothing. Questions have been asked and remain unanswered, despite much of their membership having been in attendance at one of the Toronto conventicles. Only a Nova Scotian journalist has been openly willing to discuss the proceedings and he has been dragging his feet due to personal demands upon his time.

Lastly, on question 2, I am deadly serious. I want to know what L.Y. Rahmani has to say about the ossuary. I also want to know why Shanks, Lemaire and anyone involved with the shipment of the ossuary out of Israel (up to and including the curators and administration of the Royal Ontario Museum) failed to have an assessment done by the world's leading expert on Jewish ossuaries. He was, after all, right there in Jerusalem (so far as I know - he's reputed to be a curator at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem). Why was he not consulted?

Again, thanks for posting up all the blow by blow as it happens. I was beginning to think everybody just wanted to sweep it under the rug.

In appreciation,

godfry n. glad

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]</p>

Sauron

Now that more experts have studied photographs of the inscription or seen it on display at a Toronto museum, they generally accept the antiquity of the ossuary itself, but some of them suspect that all or part of the script is a forgery. Apparent differences in the handwriting, they said, suggested that the Jesus phrase in particular could have been added by a forger, either in ancient or modern times.

"Box good. Writing bad."

How ironic. I remember suggesting the same thing to Layman.

Speaking of which - has anyone seen him? Is his planning on defending his earlier position? What about on XTALK?

Egoinos

One of my lecturers was at one of those conferences, he reckons the bit of the inscription which says "brother of Jesus" is a later addition. But its not really his field, as he's more of an expert on Canaan and Ugarit.

Vorkosigan

People may be keeping silent due to legal complications, as well as the campaign of harassment that gets conducted against critics of things Christians like. Consider, if you publicly imply it is fake, Golan might sue you for reducing the value of his property or for implying he is a fraud. The possibility does exist, however small it might be.

Vorkosigan