Yuri Kuchinsky

Good for you, Vork!

Now, speaking only for myself , I've been harassed and pushed out of XTALK, because I was interested in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. So I guess this can tell us just who these folks really are. "Don't confuse us with any of your new evidence, especially if it has anything to do with Semitic texts! After all, we already know that Jesus was Greek!"

As to these totally open-minded folks at JM, they banned me outright, and without any warning having been issued, because they thought I was "abrasive". Now, I don't know about anyone else but, personally, I don't think I've ever met even one Jesus Myther who wasn't "abrasive". So, I think, if these guys really want to be totally honest and objective, why don't they expel everyone from their JesusMysteries list, including themselves, for being "abrasive", and be done with it?

Yes, these are the adventures in the Net-Land...

Now, Jack Kilmon is, of course, my old pal, and I've never seen anyone more narrow minded about certain things, like the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, for example. This is the guy who thinks the Turin Shroud is real, but any Hebrew gospel texts must be irrelevant to early Christianity, or to the Historical Jesus. I can't believe the mumbo-jumbo inside this guy's head.

And, of course, this type of a guy would also be in the forefront of defending this new ossuary gismo. Anyone who thinks that the Turin Shroud is real will certainly be all for this "big new archaeological discovery".

Oh, well, a sucker is born every minute, like they say, and there will always be some "scholars" who are eager to peddle to their tastes. But of course, seeing how dishonest this whole NT field is, nothing is really surprising there.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Bede

I have just been looking through the posts on XTalk and JM and must say that this thing is getting way too heated. I know we throw buns at each other here but I always thought real academics were better behaved.

Vork, I doubt Jack saw your JM post in reply to him as a whole lot went through on 27/12. I do think your hints of outright forgery are over done but this is from someone who never found the bone box of much interest in the first place. For what it is worth, my latest post on Xtalk asking that Doherty and Price be taken seriously (while slamming Freke and Gandy for which I make no apology) also disappeared into the aether.

Anyway, it seems that the Sec Web boards are rather more like academia than I previously thought. In that case it has been good practice for my own not exactly uncontentious views on science.

Yours

Bede

Butters

Yet another example that religion tries to suppress the facts, while science seeks to examine them.

Vorkosigan

Vork, I doubt Jack saw your JM post in reply to him as a whole lot went through on 27/12.

It was on 12/25.

I do think your hints of outright forgery are over done

Here are some facts that are publicly known:

1. Golan is not the real owner of the box.

2. The man hawking the box, Lemaire, is also the man authenticating it.

3. The box went through New York to Toronto when it could have taken El Al directly from Israel to Toronto.

4. The box arrived already packed at the shippers.

5. When unpacked, it was damaged. The blow looked like a concussion blow (see Kilmon and Lupia's remarks on this).

6. The crack went through the controversial second half of the inscription.

7. When the box was unwrapped, it contained a previously unseen feature that dated it into the Herodian period, silencing critics who pointed out that it may be from after 70 AD.

8. The leading expert on ossuaries, Rahimini, lives in Jerusalem, but was never shown the box.

9. The initial assay by the Israeli Geological people did not address any of the key issues. This looks a lot like a forger attempting to retain control of the information flow around the object.

10. An error/variant in the second half of the inscription is exactly the same as in another ossuary also containing the inscription "..the brother of..." as if the inscriber had the catalog in front of him when it was done.

11. Lemaire is associated with another famous find that also appeals to historicist thinking.

12. That find was also found in a private collection.

13. Critics of the box have been persistently attacked and smeared in the press.

There's more that I have heard privately but cannot reveal here, partly because I've been asked not to, and partly because I could be being played like a fish. One just doesn't know, really, who is communicating with one on the net. Everything could be a coincidence, and these mysteries also comport with the story that it is an ancient forgery that is being knowingly hawked by someone involved. Still, there's something extremely fishy going on here.

but this is from someone who never found the bone box of much interest in the first place. For what it is worth, my latest post on Xtalk asking that Doherty and Price be taken seriously (while slamming Freke and Gandy for which I make no apology) also disappeared into the aether.

Slam Freke and Gandy all you want. But thanks for the note to take Doherty and Price more seriously. Time for me to read Price.

Anyway, it seems that the Sec Web boards are rather more like academia than I previously thought.

LOL. Just wait until your first paper is venomously attacked for no apparent reason. And your research grant is held up....although things tend to be more restrained in history of science, where millions of dollars are not at stake.

Vorkosigan

Artemus

The questions that Vorkosigan has listed would seem to be exactly the type that peer review is designed to address. Why is this being taken seriously at all when they skipped peer review and went straight to the popular press to make the announcement? (I asked this before in an earlier thread, but didn't get any responses.) It would be prudent to use extreme caution when considering the claims made. This reminds me of the cold fusion announcement of the late 80's.

Toto

Are you talking about the Israeli investigation into when exactly he bought it, or is there something else that I missed?

Vorkosigan

Well, I'm wrong on at least one. According to the article at Bib Interp above, the rosette is weathered and cannot be modern.

Vorkosigan

Rochelle Altman said that he is not the real owner of the box in a post on JM last week. She has some connections to the police investigation. Did I misread something?

Toto

But you noted that one expert pointed out that the rosette would be expected to mark the front of the box, indicating that a modern forger could have accidentally chosen what was the back of the box to work on.

Toto

I remember her saying that, but I didn't understand what she meant. My guess was that she thought he had bought it more recently than in the 70's, and his possession is against Israeli law. She might know more than we know.