Haran

No, no, no.... I'm not saying that he should get away with anything. Forget it... It was a bad example. If they would accuse him of felony theft for purchasing a stolen ossuary from an antiquities dealer (who might have sold legitimate artifacts as well), then I am wrong. I don't have enough information to go on either about Israeli law or about what kind of interaction actually happened.

So, do you guys know that Golan is a thief because he went out to an archaeological dig and stole the artifact, knowingly purchased from an antiquities dealer an artifact stolen from an archaeological dig, or what? How do you know this? How do you know that he didn't come across the artifact legitimately? What exact evidence tells you this for sure? When saying that Golan may have broken an Israeli law, why is the word thief not being used as rhetoric to make him (and by implication, the ossuary) look bad?

I'm really confused about the leaps people are taking here.

I see no point in debating Golan further. Until top scholars change their view of the antiquity of the James ossuary and its inscription, Golan makes no difference. I hope they find out about him one way or the other soon, because I think all of this is ridiculous.

By the way, I believe the Joash inscription may not be authentic. However, I don't think that means that Golan and "posse" did it...

Toto

Mere possession of an antiquity purchased after 1978 in Israel is a crime. That is the least of what Golan is suspected of. (Secret warehouse? engraving equipment?)

I think this applies to the ossuary as well:

Collector's attorney blasts Antiquities Authority

More on Golan and his legal problems:

Exhibit A: Ninth-century King Jehoash tablet

Sauron

If I thought (or if you could demonstrate) that the question of patina required the high-powered guns of a full PhD in chemistry, then I might agree with you. However, that's hardly the case here - we're not creating a new aspirin substitute here; we're only discussing patina.

Moroever, Lupia provides step-by-step instructions as to how this forgery could be done. I seriously doubt he would be able to do that, if this wasn't an already-known process among archaeologists and/or art historians. And of course, by publishing the steps and the results, Lupia lays his cards on table, allows his idea to be tested, and puts his reputation on the line.

And finally, the IGS is obviously an excellent source, but if they're not looking for some item X, then they're not likely to find it. Lupia's contention is that the IGS report is not flawed at all; but it simply wasn't looking for a particular type of evidence. That being the case, the IGS report cannot properly be said to contradict Lupia.

Lupia gives his reasons - patina and biovermiculation. And let's remember that in all this discussion about patina, no one has addressed the other point of biovermiculation.

As to why the denounciations came quickly - I remind you that:

* forgery is common in this field;
* this would be the first and only physical evidence of a 1st century Christ, so the evidentiary bar for acceptance is quite high;
* the issues of missing and/or suspicious provenance;


Why would you assume that? Do either Shanks or Witherington state that? I certainly would not assume it - after all, the point of their book was not to conduct such a probing investigation. They were recording what they saw as history; not validating a controversial claim about provenance.

And why would you assume that SW contacted more than one person, but not make the same assumption about the reporters who published articles on the ossuary in Ha'Aretz? Especially since their jobs are far closer to the "probing investigation" model? Are you operating with a double standard, Haran?


However, the articles that I provided are all the primary source. So your concern, while valid in the general case, does not apply in the specific case of what I presented here.

Please refer to my original statement:

...That, and the circumstances surrounding its discovery and exhibition are highly irregular and deserve further scrutiny. In particular, Oded Golan's claims about how and when he acquired it.

Nothing in my statement assumes a conclusion of guilt on Golan's part.

However, since making that statement, the evidence appears to be piling up rather rapidly against him.

At this point, Haran, the evidence is against Golan. You appear to be holding out against hope here. Which is your right, of course. However, given the quality of the evidence, there is nothing dishonest or illogical about a statement that says "Golan is probably involved in something dishonest and illegal."


That's hardly a ringing endorsement. You now appear to be saying that, over time, people forget valid objections about an artifact. And since they do, it passes into the mainstream of accepted archaeological history, in a sort of sloppy and passive manner. But that doesn't address the initial concerns, nor does it refute them - it sidesteps them by relying on bad memories and human error. That's not a definition of "authenticity" that I care to defend; do you?

As I said - it has limited value to a claim of authenticity.

I think you're just the victim of a bad example, Haran.

No. It ties the quarrying of the ossuary to only the Menuha formation of Mt. Scopus limestone. In fact, the IGS issued a clarification that said:

1. there are no chemical markers in the limestone that permit a localization to Jerusalem; and

2. they admitted that the IGS initial report that said the ossuary was from Jerusalem was a statement based upon their historical knowledge that such "ossuary factories" were common around that area.

You are jumping to conclusions here, Haran. That is not necessarily true. It depends upon (at a minimum) whether or not patina is generic in nature, or if there exists something like a "patina fingerprint", that would allow a precise localization.

Vorkosigan

By the way, why do you think his condemnation of the ossuary inscription was as quick and unreasonably confident as Dr. Altman, without having seen the ossuary? I just don't understand these quick denunciations from the scholarly community. I'm being quite serious.

Haran! We've been telling you for the last six months why it was a forgery and Golan a probable forger. I personally have given you numerous reasons. Several us spotted it for a probable forgery right away, which Golan at least had knowledge of. What I never understood is why you felt constrained to defend this object that was so obviously a forgery.

Vorkosigan

Haran

This is usually the way things work. If this is such an extraordinary find (as you have mentioned), then the "big guns" should be brought in. This could be a hugely important find. I believe the best of the best scholars should be consulted. I'm sad you do not feel the same.

I'd like it if you could point us toward some of this detailed analysis. I'm not convinced by the details I've seen so far.

His theory seems to hinge on two things: biovermiculation and patina.

Biovermiculation, I believe, can be uneven across an ossuary depending upon how and where it was situated. This doesn't seem like a good reason to doubt the inscription to me.

The patina, he seems to claim, could not have been cleaned off with cleaners because it is like baked glass on the limestone. Now, I'm no geologist for sure, but I believe limestone is porous and can dissolve. If the cleaner somehow got up underneath the patina and dissolved the limestone, then it seems to me the patina would flake off. Perhaps someone can explain why this might not be the case.

In one place on the web, I even read a post where he seemed to imply that the IGS might have stood to benefit from the split of an insurance claim. How many people are we going to add to our conspiracy theories, anyway?

I've not heard anyone else echo Lupia's claims so far. If I had the time, I'd check with someone else. I think Jack Kilmon probably has the experience to confirm or dismiss Lupia's claims. I'd be interested to know his opinion. It may already be out there in one of the scholarly forums. Wish I had the time to check.

I think I've seen some different opinions about this on the ANE-List. Maybe Toto can find them. I can't remember if they were for or against the IGS report with respect to checking for forgery. By the way, Yuval is against the authenticity of both inscriptions I believe, so you might look to find a conflicting opinion to see what their ideas are...

Not good enough for the question. Most scholars do not immediately jump out and denounce things as forgeries. I was not impressed with those who did, especially without having seen or analyzed the thing in person.

Ok? So, if it is evidence for the historical Jesus, then it must be immediately a forgery?? I'm not sure I get your reasoning here... So, the bar is set high. Let's not raise it to impossible...

You know as well as I do that true scholars work with facts, not rumors and speculation.

Seriously, I think you need to re-examine why these people were so quick to denounce the find. I'm somewhat distrustful of those who so quickly and confidently dismiss things based on circumstantial evidence, doctorate degree in some field or not.

Shanks is quite well-known in archaeological circles. I see no reason why he would not have used his contacts in writing this book.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't think I ever said anything about Ha'Aretz not using multiple sources. I certainly have no double standard. You might make the assumption that Ha'Aretz is closer to a "probing investigation" model(not sure this is necessarily so, considering we are dealing with scholarship, i.e. probing investigation), but I'm not sure that Ha'Aretz would necessarily be closer to the archaeologists and geologists involved than Shanks and Witherington.

I think I could go back through your posts and find the words "thief" and "theft" used of Golan. This seems to assume guilt. Guilty until proven innocent...

...or at least the spin put on the "evidence".

Again, I'm not defending the guy, but I think you guys are really jumping the gun based on a lot of possibly biased reporting. It's funny to see such blind faith in atheists.

Again, I'm not holding out any "hope", I just refuse to be so judgemental. If it is proven that his tools were not for normal restoration use (remember he is a collector), etc., then fine. If conclusive proof comes in, then I'll agree with you.

Haran

Oh... no.... no, no, no.... Back to square one!

Again, if Golan did something illegal (and I still find that a big "if"), then oh well.

If I'm wrong about the ossuary inscription, then I'll be in good company considering the top-notch scholars who seem to share my view.

Finally, I have rather felt obliged to fend off reckless scholarship that seems bent on discrediting a possible major find before it is even studied in reasonable scholarly detail.

I'm becoming tired of the discussion. No offense, I just am. There really is not much new being presented at the moment. We could go back and forth on the current, old issues ad nauseum, and I just don't have the time to do that.

I think I will wait for more information, hopefully from a peer-reviewed journal or one of the online forums. Someone do please shout it out if they convict Golan.

Seriously though, thanks for the discussion, all. It's been interesting. I leave you with the last word, if you so desire it.

Toto

Here's another update:

Probe of ancient burial box brings increased doubt about authenticity

In the meantime, I am curious about Shanks's and Witherington's book. It now has its own website which you can find at www.brotherofjesus.com (which redirects you to Harper Collins.) You can find Shanks' book tour schedule there, starting April 1 (no comment from me necessary) on Beliefnet.com plus a Chicago location, then working his way to the East Coast, and appearing in Los Angeles at the LA Times book fair April 27. You can also read an excerpt from Shanks' deathless prose of Chapter 1 of the book on that site.

Shanks seems to be doing the entire book tour himself.

The Discovery Channel will run a show on the ossuary on Easter Sunday.

keyser_soze

Whatever happened to that ongoing debate over the ossuary over at TW anyway. I looked around but must have missed it. I remember it got rather heated until they caught Golan redhanded, but I haven't seen the thread. And the way that place is run, I wouldn't put it past them to delete the thread for turkel when it came out he was wrong(that whole place has their nose so far up his rear, if he stopped....they'd all suffocate). Probably I just missed it, but could someone link to it?

Sauron

The thread at Theologyweb.com is here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&pagenumber=15

I haven't had a chance to respond yet - unlike Turkel, I have a 60 hour/week job and I don't support myself by begging money from the internet. In fact, I haven't even had time to respond to Haran, in this thread.

One additional thing - the vast majority of salient points, both pro and con for the ossuary and for Oded Golan, have been made here in this exchange with Haran. Even though Haran and I disagree strongly on the issue, it's been a pleasant surprise at how civil and well-reasoned this exchange has been.

Kinda makes it hard to give a flying rip, about what one ego-centric fraud on Theologyweb might be saying.

keyser_soze

Yeah, turkel ignored the point, and went on about how I was slandering because I called "brownnose"...Hey, I call them like I see them. When the pile comes down, he will simply abandon his previous position I'm sure. Hear that turkel? I'm saying you are a nerdy little prison librarian. That is slander, NOT. You are a rude little bugger, you deserve what you get...or don't get, as the case might be.