Peter Kirby

If there was any doubt that "The Ossuary Redux" would make good docutainment, it was dispelled by Michael's post. Let's start petitioning Discovery channel and get him on the writing team...

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

First, I don't see the logical connection of the two sentences. If it is more useful to evaluate the logic (and verify the data where possible) than to check credentials, then one should have accepted the conclusions of the two people at the IGS? Huh?

Second, see Vorkosigan for some insight into the inadequacy of the tests conducted (or rather not conducted) by the IGS, and see Godfry for an indication of a significant error in the IGS statements. Besides, can anyone tell me whether the two people at the IGS were acting in official capacity?

Third, as to the statements of well-respected scholars like Frank Moore Cross, I just have a little anecdote. There is a realm of authentication that is well known to all youths: that of the fake ID. And the question that always arises when you have a fake ID is, "will this work?" So of course you ask your buddies. But this is useless. They just want to drink. So they tell you, "Oh, you got a good one. Ya, this is gonna work, this is gonna work. Dude, trust me, wear the moustache, you'll be fine." Likewise with the ossuary: did these other respected scholars put the thing under a microscope? No, they didn't do any of the necessary physical tests, so their opinion doesn't amount to much. But they will offer their opinion because it conforms to their predilections. "The first direct archaeological link to Jesus. Amazing. Obviously the ossuary dates to 62 A.D." Of course, the only thing that ever tied the ossuary to 62 A.D. is the assumption that the ossuary was that of the James brother of Jesus in Ant. 20.200, making that argument entirely circular.

OK, now what are you assuming? That I "simply" accept their "conclusions"? I'll tell you what I do. I accept the facts that have been discovered and draw my own conclusions. Here is the evidence of which I know.

1. John Lupia writes (Nov. 3, 2002): "Biovermiculation is limestone erosion and dissolution caused by bacteria over time in the form of pitting and etching. The ossuary had plenty except in and around the area of the inscription. This is not normal." Anyone can verify from a close-up photograph that the inscription shows no sign of biovermiculation and thus appears freshly cut. Compare the surface outside the letters with that inside the letters, which is smooth.

2. The Archaeological Institute of America writes (June 19, 2003): "Both varnish and patina coated a rosette inscribed on the other side of the ossuary. But Goren and Ayalon's meticulous microscopic analysis showed that the letters of the entire Aramaic inscription 'James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus' were cut through the varnish, indicating that they were carved long--perhaps centuries after--the varnish-covered rosette." I don't know how bias can make a patina disappear under a microscope only inside the inscription--lying, maybe, but nobody has accused the members of the IAA of that yet. The claim that the patina was cleaned off is desperate and ridiculous. Again John Lupia states (Nov. 3, 2002), "This is impossible since patina cannot be cleaned off limestone with any solvent or cleanser since it is essentially baked on glass."

3. The Archaeological Institute of America writes (June 19, 2003): "Strangest of all was the 'James Bond,' the chalky material that coated the letters. It contained numerous microfossils called coccoliths, naturally occurring as foreign particles in chalk, but not dissolved by water. Hence it was clear that this was not a true patina formed by the surface crystallization of calcite, but rather powdered chalk--microfossils and all--that was dissolved in water and daubed over the entire inscription." Note that the ossuary had to have been placed in a microwave or kiln after the chalky material was placed on the ossuary so that it could bond with the limestone. It couldn't be the result of an unorthodox cleaning regimen by Oded's mom. Rather, it was deliberately placed on the inscription so as to give the appearance of a patina.

4. With the above three points of evidence, the case is made, but it is always helpful to provide means, motive, and opportunity. The forger had to have access to ancient ossuaries, had to have possession of tools for forgery, and had to stand to gain something from its alleged authenticity. The forger also may be associated with other obvious forgeries (like the Jehoash Inscription). There is a person who fits these criteria.

For these reasons, my own conclusion is that the inscription is fake.

You seem to be taking an agnostic stance on the ossuary's inscription. I have two comments on that. First, I rarely think that it is irrational to be agnostic on disputed issues. So I do not fault you for taking an agnostic stance, even if I don't take one at present. Second, even though the inscription doesn't provide much new information if authentic (so there was a guy named Jesus? did you doubt that?), the thing proves nothing if we can't judge it to be authentic. Thus, being agnostic amounts to about the same as considering it a forgery: except, of course, for the case of Oded Golan.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Contrary to what some think, I realize quite well that epigraphy does not make the complete case (but I do believe it plays a role). I feel that my statements have been taken out of context or, at the least, misunderstood.

As Godfry questioned, didn't ROM do some sort of geological analysis as well that is being ignored? I thought they did, anyway. However, I suppose they're in on the "big conspiracy" as well.

Oh well, I'm too busy at the moment to deal with this in any more detail. Suffice it to say that because I leaned toward authenticity, it is hard for me to immediately and blindly leap onto the forgery bandwagon. If the "commission" had judged the ossuary authentic, then I doubt that many here would have immediately jumped on the authenticity bandwagon either (probably never ).

Whatever... I'm feeling slightly outnumbered and pushed to accept a judgement with which I do not yet feel comfortable. I will not until and unless I am ready. Sorry this causes some to lose respect for me, I would think it would be the other way around. No matter...

Haran

For Sauron on the Altman debacle mentioned in the other thread...

The first place I encountered Dr. Altman's first publication on the ossuary was in Jewsweek

And in Israel Insider

These were the only places I was aware of this early on.

My Response to this report by Altman

After writing my response to her, I politely emailed Altman and asked her to read and critique it.

During this time, I had posted parts of my response to other forums. John Lupia and Isidoros Kioleoglou (2 of the 3 who eventually peer-reviewed Altman's next and "Final Report") read my response and kindly corresponded with me via email about it. Both ultimately disagreed with me about the inscription, but they seemed to feel that I had some valid questions for Altman to clarify. As a matter of fact, I noticed that the Uzziah Burial Plaque that I had mentioned in my response also appeared in her later "Final Report". I'm not quite sure what to make of this...just an independent coincidence I'm sure...

At this time, several people asked permission to post my response (including Peter, though I'm not sure he knew who I was at the time). I gave them all permission and asked them to link to my webpage.

Anyway, not long after, I found out through the grapevine that Altman was bad-mouthing me on the JesusMysteries list. I couldn't understand this since she had politely (though tersely) corresponded with me via email several of times (on topics such as the 'ayin' as 'mensural base' issue and other things). I openly invited her by email to critique my response and she even responded positively to a request to add her to my new yahoo forum called Biblical-Paleography (she's still a member, though she unfortunately never bothered to show up and discuss her point of view).

Here is the very unfortunate and frustrating JesusMysteries exchange:

Altman's first surreptitious post (she had no idea I lurked there)
Not nice... Lemaire was supposedly using my "trash" (yeah right, he was using my stuff...) and "scraping the bottom of the barrel" in doing so.

What did I do to deserve this cruel talk?? Why did she not express how she felt in our several private correspondences (on topics) or on a public forum that she knew I frequented??

I found out and responded:

Defending myself...

Altman
ALTMAN: "Nowhere in any article do I say "Fake." I feel that she changed her story quite a bit...

Me

Altman

At this point, I privately emailed her with the following:

-----------------------------
Dr. Altman,

Your recent post on JesusMysteries and your emails to
certain websites (such as "TombofJesus") have caused
me great concern. In these posts and emails, you have
accused me of lies, "word changes", and ad hominems.
I have made what I feel to be an appropriate response
on the JesusMysteries board and hope that you will
take the time to read and understand it.

I have no ill-will against you and apologize for
anything that might have offended you in my article.
Offense was not my objective. A more detailed
discussion of the James Ossuary was my goal.

I am also baffled by your tone in the JesusMysteries
post because our email correspondence has been very
cordial. If you felt this way about my article, I do
not understand why you did not say so directly to me
rather than saying it to others behind my back.

Please understand that I do not wish to get into a
"mud-slinging match" with you. I respect your work,
and you may well be right, but I am not persuaded by
your current report.

Please, if you have any further comments, send them to
me directly rather than first posting them publicly
without giving me a chance to respond and explain my
own point of view. I have no problems with you
questioning my work, constructively pointing out where
I might be wrong. I do not, however, appreciate
personal public attacks (such as calling my work
"trash" and "lies" on the JesusMysteries board)
without even letting me know that you have a problem
with my work (and apparently character, considering
your use of the word "lies") and without letting me
know what those problems are.

Thank you...
-------------------------

I never received a response to this. I did, however, receive email responses from others on the JesusMysteries who thought she was way out of line.

This was not a single incident. According to the author of one particular web page (whom I corresponded with) that posted my response without permission, Altman emailed him three times complaining until he finally posted a statement from her that accused me of "misinformation" and "outright lies". Give me a break... Why did she feel that her ideas were so threatened by a hobbyist that she had to frantically respond to my article being posted on the TombOfJesus website website??

I found this all quite cruel when I had only been kind to her in all our exchanges, in fact, wishing to get her to clarify her position rather more than to challenge it.

At this point, I don't even care to point out what I felt to be the biased rhetoric in her posts previous to her first articles in Jewsweek and IsraelInsider.

So, there you have it Sauron. I suppose you still won't believe, but that doesn't matter to me because I know...

Peter Kirby

My prediction: this thing will go to court, and it will be called "The Trial of the Millennium."

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Contrary to what some think, I realize quite well that epigraphy does not make the complete case (but I do believe it plays a role). I feel that my statements have been taken out of context or, at the least, misunderstood.

No, understood all too well. The role of epigraphy is to rule out, not authenticate. This you have not yet shown you understand clearly.

As Godfry questioned, didn't ROM do some sort of geological analysis as well that is being ignored? I thought they did, anyway. However, I suppose they're in on the "big conspiracy" as well.

The ROM, as has already been explained, did not perform even a single relevant test. The ROM's tests did not bear on the crucial issue of the patina over the inscription in comparison to the patina elsewhere. From here: "Energy dispersal spectrometry showed calcite, silica etc. consistent with Jerusalem clays. Ultraviolet spectrum analysis by the ROM revealed no fake patina (a thin sheen that forms on stone over time)." Unfortunately the ROM's UV tests could not reveal the fine differences between the two patinas. Also, the ROM did not remove the patina to show the fresh engraving marks underneath. End of discussion of ROM.

Let's point that out again: "fresh engraving marks." Unless you want to claim that the IAA is either blind or lying, you should probably revise your position to include this information. Such marks render all previous tests irrelevant or incorrect. The ROM did not perform the right tests.

Note, finally, the lie by Golan. The patina had been cleaned off by his mother, he claimed, but the ROM found patina on the inscription. What happened? Did it ooze back on after mom cleaned it off?

Oh well, I'm too busy at the moment to deal with this in any more detail. Suffice it to say that because I leaned toward authenticity, it is hard for me to immediately and blindly leap onto the forgery bandwagon.

Nobody has "blindly" leaped anywhere. If you do not want people to "push" you, why do you continually make sly, provocative comments like this?

If the "commission" had judged the ossuary authentic, then I doubt that many here would have immediately jumped on the authenticity bandwagon either (probably never ).

It was never going to judge this fake authentic. My one worry was that they would bow to the enormous pressure for authenticity and make an ambiguous report. But the fake was so bad there was no possibility of that. Reading between the lines, it was obvious they were insulted by the poor quality of the fake.

Spin, spin, spin. I lost respect for you because of your obvious unwillingness to face reality and inability to understand where you had erred, and unwillingness to read any of the numerous books on fakes I recommended, or peruse the sites I recommended on archaeological faking, not because your position was slow to change.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Actually the Naveh revealed earlier this year that he had seen the Jehoash inscription in 2001. The Temple Reciept OStracon (found by Lemaire in a private collection), the Jehoash Inscription, and the Ossuary all bear overlapping traits suggesting that they are from the same forgery mill. See Altman's report here.

Jehoash Inscription

Vorkosigan

Haran

What 'thing'?

Peter Kirby

Haran, remind me never to tell you another joke.

I am talking about the James ossuary and its ownership and/or authenticity.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

LOL! Sorry, when you're the minority and your views are seemingly under attack from every direction, jokes don't always come across just right...