Vorkosigan

I think for many of us, wholly unskilled in the fields of paleography and epigraphy and with no basis for challenging or dismissing the credentials and/or integrity of scholars such as Lemaire, "concluding from the get-go that it was a forgery" seems more characteristic of faith-based bias.

One did not need epigraphy and paleography to challenge the conclusion at the beginning. Simple knowledge of human nature, the NT texts, and history was enough. At no time I ever challenge anyone's scholarly "integrity," except BAR's and then I did not know where or how in the editorial process such integrity was somehow lost, so named no names. Never did I suspect Lemaire of deliberate fraud, and I still don't, although if this does turn out to be a fraud, I suspect people will be taking a look at his other finds. Whoever committed this fraud, in my view, has been dead for many centuries. As I opined from the beginning.

That is precisely why I am more than willing to heap abuse on Shanks "for "jumping the gun" ... for concluding from the get-go that it was" the ossuary of James the Just.

There was already sufficient information from the beginning to know that the ossuary, if connected to Jesus, had to be a fake. I can't help it if you are...uncritical... enough to think that an object of mysterious provenance that names at least two semi-mythical characters could actually be a real object, but some of us, more familiar perhaps with scholarly arguments on the relationship between James and Jesus, were not so sanguine. Strong evidence already out there for 19 centuries indicates that James was not the biological brother of Jesus. No epigraphy needed.

Speaking of fraud, both Lupia and Kilmon have noted that the crack looks like a concussion fracture made by a circular object. Deliberately? You make the call. Additionally, Lupia has raised the issue of the object's rather strange route through NY rather than directly to Toronto on El Al. There's some more funny business going on here. Can't wait to see how this finally turns out.

Vorkosigan

Jayhawker Soule

You are distorting my position, whether through presumption or pretension I can not tell.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

leonarde

I think it a great thing that new archaeological
discoveries like the ossuary receive a very critical reception, on the internet as elsewhere.
The criticisms are useful in figuring out how
evaluations of new finds are done. But I would like to point out that among the criticisms are
a number of mutually exclusive, simultaneously-
unsustainable ones. For example from a text provided by Toto we have: (emphasis added by leonarde)

Halpern seems to be saying 'the inscription is too darned good' and 'that makes me suspicious".

Other critics are saying 'the inscription is
clumsily done, so clumsily done, that one would have to be "blind as a bat" not to see it' and
'that makes me suspicious'.

Intellectually these are polar opposites and (in my mind) irreconcileable criticisms: is the inscription a poorly done one or "very carefully
executed"?

Cheers!

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Tercel

I second Leonarde. What the heck is going on here? Altman says that the 2nd half of the script's written really badly by a semi-literate, and now Halpern says the script is too good to be true.

Oh and btw:
Whether or not BAR will have egg on their face at the end of all this, some here are making themselves look far worse by shouting "Hurrah! We told you so!" at the pronouncement of "forgery" by any remotely qualified person. Whatever happened to skepticism? Or do you guys merely apply it selectively - ie only to announcements and events which disagree with the way you'd like the world to be?

Vorkosigan

I'll try not to distort your accusations from now on, RD.

I agree with Tercel and leonarde that Halpern's comments seem strange in light of Altman's, although perhaps there is some way to reconcile them.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Oh and btw:
Whether or not BAR will have egg on their face at the end of all this, some here are making themselves look far worse by shouting "Hurrah! We told you so!" at the pronouncement of "forgery" by any remotely qualified person.

Nobody would be saying anything, if simply stating one's opinion that it would turn out to be a forgery didn't trigger a barrage of self-righteous, irrational criticism.

Although, in fairness, I should add it is not just the remarks here that ticked me off, but the comments on the academic lists that I lurk on.

Whatever happened to skepticism? Or do you guys merely apply it selectively - ie only to announcements and events which disagree with the way you'd like the world to be?



[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Toto

Altman, who gave the quote "blind as a bat", was referring to her observation that that the first and second parts did not match in style, with the first in a more careful formal style than the second. She did not describe the entire inscription as clumsy - just the fraud. She made a point of noting the care and quality of the first part.

I can't judge Halpern's words without their context.

Tercel - a skeptic is going to put the burden of proof the proponents of the ossuary. It has been pronounced a probable fraud by a few people who are much more than "remotely" qualified, and the case for its actually being related to Jesus or James the Just was very shaky to start off with. But no one here is committed to one position yet - we're all waiting for more evidence.

Vorkosigan

For those of you interested in antiquities fraud, and I suspect that more than one person's general interest has been piqued by this affair, this <a href="http://www.museum-security.org/artcrime.html" target="_blank">museum security mailing list</a> has interesting archives.

Vorkosigan

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

CX

Nonsense. Concluding from the "get-go" that something is or is not a forgery is not mitigated by being accidentally proven correct. Critical thinking is critical thinking. Being irrationally correct is only nontrivially different from being rationally correct. The problem is that the former state of affairs leads more often to being incorrect whereas the latter does not.

Vorkosigan

Thanks, CX. I stand corrected. Actually, I admit decision was entirely random, based on coin flips, tarot cards, tea leaf reading, and scans of the intestines of slaughtered chickens, and no evidence, 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.

Vorkosigan

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>