Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-25-2002, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
I do not know enough to reject the view of Andre Lemaire and Kyle McCarter in favor of Altman's analysis. In fact, I'm a little surprised that she would 'peer review' these experts on a Yahoo site.

The "Yahoo site" is a discussion list for Biblical scholars. One of the discussants asked for her opinion, and she wrote a letter, which he posted with permission. I don't think she is the only expert who has weighed in. But clearly BAR did not "peer review" the article with any experts in forgery.

Jayhawker Soule · 10-25-2002, 11:00 AM

Thanks. I didn't know that she was an expert in forgery.

Toto · 10-25-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:

Who wants to speculate. . .

I think one of these scenarios:

Someone found the ossuary around 400 CE when it read "James the son of Joseph". This person had read Josephus and decided that James must be the brother of Jesus, and decided to enhance the ossuary with "brother of Jesus."

Someone around 1985 decided to pull off a hoax. They bought an ossuary (one of many) that read "James the son of Joseph" and added "brother of Jesus", after researching other ossuaries and finding the other one that listed a brother. They then did something to get a uniform patina, (I have to admit this is the weak part of the theory, since I don't know how feasible that is) and when it could pass the tests, invited Lemaire to come view it. This person would need to have some technical expertise and ancient tools. This person may have been trying to set Lemaire up to look like a dupe. (This person is obviously the anonymous owner of the ossuary.)

The Christians are already speculating that an illiterate Galilean relative of James and Jesus showed up after the ossuary was inscribed, and added "brother of Jesus". But this does not explain why the forger tried to make it look like it had been part of the original inscription by chiseling off the frame, instead of being upfront and forthright.

Next questions: what with BAR do with the egg on its face? Where is Layman now?

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Sauron · 10-25-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:

Next questions: what with BAR do with the egg on its face? Where is Layman now?

I suspect Layman has to work today. He used up a lot of hours yesterday debating, and he needs to rack up some billable time *somehow*.

Vorkosigan · 10-25-2002, 02:14 PM

On XTALK someone mentioned another person had independently noted the second half of the inscription was by another hand. Apikorus apparently can see it too.

Vorkosigan

Apikorus · 10-25-2002, 02:45 PM

Well, I certainly get no credit for that, since it is 20/20 hindsight after reading Altman's comments. But the second half is indeed sloppier than the first. The leading aleph and the trailing yod in )XWY (akhui?) are very sloppy. In the "enhanced" images the trailing yod looks quite long, almost like a second waw, which is in fact how Altman read it. What I can't at all figure out is how she read the next character, presumably a daleth as an ayin. It is a lousy daleth for sure, but an even lousier ayin. This is what led her to speculate that the second author was barely literate: )XWW(Y#W( is hopelessly garbled, whereas )XWYDY#W( is clearly akhui d'yshua.

Incidentally, Rahmani points out that most of the inscriptions are sloppy, and after perusing the catalog I can say he's quite right. I've seen an even lousier daleth in another Aramaic inscribed ossuary.

I found Altman's explanation of why the inscriptions generally are so poor to be quite interesting. Also I totally missed the fact (according to Altman) that the James ossuary inscription is excised. Couldn't tell that at all from the pictures, probably because I'm an ignoramus when it comes to epigraphy.

Liquidrage · 10-25-2002, 03:00 PM

Well, this is certainly an interesting turn of events. But one that shows why it's never a good idea to jump on a claim before the evidence had time to be evaluated.

Of course, because I've seen more internet claims claiming it has been altered doesn't proove anything either.

But the initial idea that it could refer to an historical Jesus was jumping the gun and the onus of proof was on that claim.

Shoddy reporting at it's best.
And of course somehow you just know CNN and Yahoo aren't going to post articles about the possible forgeries.

Vorkosigan · 10-25-2002, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
Well, I certainly get no credit for that, since it is 20/20 hindsight after reading Altman's comments. I'm an ignoramus when it comes to epigraphy.

Compared to what, me? I can't see the difference at all! At least you can see it.

Photocrat · 10-25-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:
Well, I certainly get no credit for that, since it is 20/20 hindsight after reading Altman's comments. But the second half is indeed sloppier than the first. The leading aleph and the trailing yod in )XWY (akhui?) are very sloppy. In the "enhanced" images the trailing yod looks quite long, almost like a second waw, which is in fact how Altman read it. What I can't at all figure out is how she read the next character, presumably a daleth as an ayin. It is a lousy daleth for sure, but an even lousier ayin. This is what led her to speculate that the second author was barely literate: )XWW(Y#W( is hopelessly garbled, whereas )XWYDY#W( is clearly akhui d'yshua.

Incidentally, Rahmani points out that most of the inscriptions are sloppy, and after perusing the catalog I can say he's quite right. I've seen an even lousier daleth in another Aramaic inscribed ossuary.

I found Altman's explanation of why the inscriptions generally are so poor to be quite interesting. Also I totally missed the fact (according to Altman) that the James ossuary inscription is excised. Couldn't tell that at all from the pictures, probably because I'm an ignoramus when it comes to epigraphy.

If it helps to explain it any, SFAIK, Altman has only examined this artifact in the public photographs. Perhaps Altman didn't see a clear enough picture, or saw one from a slightly different angle? Hopefully, we'll know a lot more once this is examined by more scholars.

Radorth · 10-25-2002, 08:26 PM

Dr. Altman seems to know what she is talking about, although it seems other experts disagree. Unusual. After reading some of the comments on the other site, I'm not sure how anyone without a Phd in epigrageography could tell the difference.

Rad

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2002, 11:00 AM	#32
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Thanks. I didn't know that she was an expert in forgery.

10-25-2002, 02:14 PM	#35
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	On XTALK someone mentioned another person had independently noted the second half of the inscription was by another hand. Apikorus apparently can see it too. Vorkosigan

10-25-2002, 02:45 PM	#36
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Well, I certainly get no credit for that, since it is 20/20 hindsight after reading Altman's comments. But the second half is indeed sloppier than the first. The leading aleph and the trailing yod in )XWY (akhui?) are very sloppy. In the "enhanced" images the trailing yod looks quite long, almost like a second waw, which is in fact how Altman read it. What I can't at all figure out is how she read the next character, presumably a daleth as an ayin. It is a lousy daleth for sure, but an even lousier ayin. This is what led her to speculate that the second author was barely literate: )XWW(Y#W( is hopelessly garbled, whereas )XWYDY#W( is clearly akhui d'yshua. Incidentally, Rahmani points out that most of the inscriptions are sloppy, and after perusing the catalog I can say he's quite right. I've seen an even lousier daleth in another Aramaic inscribed ossuary. I found Altman's explanation of why the inscriptions generally are so poor to be quite interesting. Also I totally missed the fact (according to Altman) that the James ossuary inscription is excised. Couldn't tell that at all from the pictures, probably because I'm an ignoramus when it comes to epigraphy.

10-25-2002, 03:00 PM	#37
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	Well, this is certainly an interesting turn of events. But one that shows why it's never a good idea to jump on a claim before the evidence had time to be evaluated. Of course, because I've seen more internet claims claiming it has been altered doesn't proove anything either. But the initial idea that it could refer to an historical Jesus was jumping the gun and the onus of proof was on that claim. Shoddy reporting at it's best. And of course somehow you just know CNN and Yahoo aren't going to post articles about the possible forgeries.

10-25-2002, 08:26 PM	#40
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Dr. Altman seems to know what she is talking about, although it seems other experts disagree. Unusual. After reading some of the comments on the other site, I'm not sure how anyone without a Phd in epigrageography could tell the difference. Rad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.