Sauron

This is a response to Robert Turkel, who's posting under his tiresome pseudonym over on Theologyweb.com. Their BBS system now has a bug in it, where you cannot post two consecutive responses to someone - you must wait until someone else posts first, before submitting the second response.

Instead of fixing the bug, the moderators over there have decided to incorporate that into the online forum, as a change to their "posting guidelines".

In any event, Turkel has just read selected paragraphs of Shanks and Witherington's book on the ossuary. My position is that the ossuary box itself is probably genuine, but that there does not exist any consensus on the inscription yet. 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.

In the below exchange, my original comment is in italics, inside the quotation field. If I merely responded to Robert Turkel, then his comment is preceded by the letters "RT". Hope this clarifies the back-and-forth of the exchange.

Let the show begin.

-----------------
(on his claim that Jesus Mythers are in the same league as "Chariots of the Gods" folks, because they don't publish in peer reviewed journals)

Uh, wrong. Creationists also have their own "publishing houses", so the equation balances on both sides. Your comment ("not published in any peer reviewed journals", etc.) still applies to creationist nonsense.


Biased and miseducated ignoramuses, specializing in obscure topics? Are you trying to tell us that you're starting up your own publishing house now?

Tackytonics Press - all the truth that's fit to twist?

Translation: you have not been able to justify your reliance on AiG, despite repeated requests from numerous sources (besides jimbo). You continue to hide behind a manufactured reason, and pretend that it gives you cover for failing to justify your position. What a coward.

Then please focus on your contradictions, not the objections. There are far and away enough of your own inconsistencies to worry about.

Dividing my responses up is childish? How so? And I note the irony - when I divide up messages, somehow that's "childish". But then you call me Saurbraten - and I suppose that's mature, right?

If you wonder why your credibility is so weak, here's another case in point.

(On my statement that he edits his responses, fails to provide links, etc.)

On the contrary: I've seen the things you've done, and you yourself testify to the fact that you refuse to provide links to your opponent's arguments. And of course, I've also given you examples from other debaters where you've twisted their words, edited your own responses, etc. Till, Jury, Holtz, etc. are all victims of this behavior.

Gossip and slander aren't necessary - you're a veritable fountain of information about your own intellectual dishonesty.

Cry for attention? I'm not the one with the self-aggrandizing website, JP Horsemanure.

Pretty sad life? As I recall, YOU'RE the laid-off prison librarian who:

* inflates the dangers in his own past employment;
* uses a pretentious pseudonym and then lies about the reason behind it; and then
* begs money to run a internet website that serves only to stroke his own ego

Yeah.

I mean, if I were a squirrely prison librarian who adopted a pompous pseudonym in order to satiate my own ego - and then lied about it - well, geewhiz, Batman. I certainly wouldn't want something *that* embarrassing to be made public.

I already provided these - Till, Jury, and Holtz. And I observed you doing the same thing, during exchanges with Lowder. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Rationalizing that behavior is not an answer. It is dishonest and unprofessional to fail to provide those links.

Moreover, your own argument defeats you - if you think that finding the articles isn't a problem for anyone, then you should logically have no objection to providing those links yourself.

No fooling necessary.

http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=75805&owner=(%20Ha'aretz)&date=20021105050150

The Antiquities Authority has received information that the ossuary was actually purchased by Golan only a few months ago.

Let's remember - your original dubious claim was:

SW say that Golen cannot remember who the dealer was, not that he insists on not disclosing the name [80].

Since he only bought the item a few months ago, the excuse of "it happened many years ago, and I don't remember his name" doesn't work here.

Oh, and by the way:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...sID=0&listSrc=Y

Last week, an East Jerusalem dealer who comes from a well-known family of Bethlehem antique sellers said that the ossuary circulated among dealers a few months ago. A well-known Israeli collector said that a year ago, the ossuary was offered to him by a dealer from the center of the country. "I chose not to deal with it," he says. "Why get involved, who needs this headache?"

During the interrogation of Golan, the IAA investigators tried to find out when, exactly, the sarcophagus was purchased.

Golan claimed that Shanks was mistaken. "I bought the sarcophagus 35 years ago, about the time of the Six-Day War," he told his interrogators. Golan was then just 16. "He knows the law better than I do," says Ganor. "The guy gave a version that is in accordance with the law. He said he has had it for 35 years, and now I have to prove that this is not the case."

Huh? Yes it does. The Intl Herald Tribune is the source, reprinting an article by Sara Leibovich-Dar writing in the Israeli paper Ha'Aretz, reporting what the Israeli Antiquities Authority said.

Are you just stupid today?

1. It is not old news; it's quite current, and you have not demonstrated that anything is outdated. Yawn.

2. You think the police weren't involved? Fine. Sources, please.

3. Besides the Ha'Aretz article quoted in IHT, here is another:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...sID=0&listSrc=Y

This modest man is Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer from Tel Aviv, unmarried and childless. A few hours before the press conference, he was questioned under warning for four hours at a Tel Aviv police station by investigators from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). They raised the suspicion that the ossuary was stolen, and that in any case, it belongs to the state and is not Golan's private property.

"He wasn't surprised when he was brought in for questioning," says Amir Ganor, head of the unit for prevention of antiquity theft at the IAA. At BAR, they didn't know that the anonymous hero of the affair had been questioned by the police. "We didn't hear anything about it," says the senior editor.

"We didn't hear...". Exactly. Notice how BAR didn't bother to check his background or verify his claims, as I earlier indicated.

4. And another:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm

No, it's a report in the respected Israeli paper Ha'Aretz, which is simply inconvenient for your defense of SW. And you've found no way to counter it except to case random and baseless aspersions.

I have no skewed views - and SH obviously didn't bother to check out the story. Shanks is quite the showman; this time his gullibility may wind up putting lots of egg on his face. His fault, not mine.

No. Just reporting the facts.

And enjoying listening to you squeal like a stuck pig, J Porky Hamhocks.

On the contrary, no paranoia needed. Just an observation of this person's actions and the particular safeguards he took on the ossuary.

* why insure a totally mundane ossuary for $1 million?
* Why pretend that it was bought before the Antiquities Law, when in reality it was not?
* Why neglect to mention the inscription - when that inscription would help identify the piece for insurance purposes, and for the export license?

However, this is an individual who was no mere Jew. He was a collector of artifacts, an expert in the field. Once again, since you obviously lacked the courage to read the Ha 'Aretz article the first time:

Why would the inscription be forged? Gideon Avni, former chief archaeologist of Jerusalem, says he has seen two inscriptions forged on ossuaries to increase the value of the object. How much is the ossuary worth? While Golan insists he paid only a few hundred dollars for it, the ossuary was insured for $1 million for its trip to Toronto. Officials at the Royal Ontario Museum have pegged its value at $2 million. Golan says it is not for sale.

Golan's memory is selective. He says he had bought the ossuary by 1976 from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer for about $200. He recalls that the dealer told him it came from Silwan, an Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem. But he doesn't remember which dealer sold it to him.

According to Golan, he was unaware of the inscription's significance until he showed Lemaire a photograph of it last spring. At the Washington press conference, Golan was said to have a limited understanding of archaeology, which explained why he did not understand its importance. These statements are difficult to reconcile with the description of him given to the press by family members. His mother says Golan was digging at a neighborhood site in Tel Aviv at the age of eight. His brother Yaron recalls him gluing potsherds together at an early age and befriending archaeologist Yigael Yadin when he participated on the latter's excavation at Masada when he was 11 years old. Golan is said to know Aramaic and, his brother says, he "has phenomenal knowledge" of archaeology.

Translation: your limp defense isn't working.

BZZT. Strawman. Golan had just finished showing it to Lemaire. At that point it time, he must have become aware of the significance of the inscription, because it was at that meeting that Lemaire got all excited at the possibility that this might have been the bonebox of James, brother of Christ. So from that point forward, Golan can no longer claim that he didn't realize what he possessed.

And had also applied for an export license. When you apply for an export license, you need to describe the artifact in question. The inscription was part of that description. Moreover, if he truly was unaware of its value, then why not mention the inscription? Why did he fail to mention the inscription in the first place?

Since the inscription helped to identify the ossuary - even if he didn't undrstand the signficance of the text - he would have still included the inscription, because it helps to set a "fingerprint" on the artifact and a way to identify it - and of course, when one insures an item for ONE MILLION DOLLARS, you had bloody well better believe that the insurance company wants a full description of the piece they're insuring.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! That's a good one! What a riot. Invalid comparison, JP Hypocrite.

The IAA was going off the description provided to them, by Golan. Since Golan conveniently left out any mention of there being an inscription, there was no way for the IAA to know its significance. A fact you would have been aware of, if you had been reading for comprehension. Here; once again:

The owner, it turns out, is Oded Golan, a 51-year-old engineer living in Tel Aviv. Hours before the announcement in Washington, Golan was at a police station being questioned about the ossuary by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).

Amir Ganor, head of the IAA's antiquities theft unit, had visited Golan's home a few weeks earlier on a routine inspection of his antiquities collection, reputedly one of the country's largest. Golan made no mention of the ossuary or its inscription, which he had shown to Lemaire months earlier.

The IAA was going off the written request for an export permit. Since Golan said nothing about the inscription, the IAA didn't know about it either.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...sID=0&listSrc=Y

We didn't examine the artifact before giving the permit," says Dr. Uzi Dahari, deputy head of the IAA, "because he asked for a temporary permit. We examine the item only when there is a request for permanent export from the country, in order to ensure that they aren't taking out some artifact that is important to the Jewish heritage. There are thousands of ossuaries; it's nothing unusual."

"The request we received was perfectly innocent, to take the item out to a congress," says Yehoshua Dorfman, director general of the IAA. "It's a customary and accepted practice; we didn't attribute any significance to it. In a routine procedure, the director of state treasures in the authority approved the request."

Warning lights began to flash at the IAA only one day before the BAR press conference, when CNN called up, asking for their comment on the astonishing finding. "We conducted an investigation in the market, and we found the collector," says Ganor.

Dahari spoke to Golan over the phone. "He confirmed that he was the owner of the ossuary," says Dahari. That same evening, Golan was called in for questioning. "We tried to find grounds for the suspicion that the ossuary was a stolen antique," Ganor explains.

I have no idea. I've seen such figures, but I don't know if they're conclusive or not.

Actually I did. Go back and read my posts about forging patina. Moreover, there is no reason why it has to be a modern forgery - it could be quite an old one.

Naw, if I was into supporting arguments with vague claims, then I'd open a website and posture myself as some kind of christian apologetic.

Dodging the point - as usual. For some strange reason, Golan can remember:

* the year it was purchased;
* the location of the antiquities dealer who sold it to him;
* the village where that antiquities dealer says it was purchased;
* the price of the purchase;

But for some *mysterious* reason, he cannot remember the name of the antiquities dealer. Hmmm. Gee. Golan remembers every single detail, except the one detail that would allow his story to be authenticated. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, isn't it?

Never mind the fact that recent information shows that Golan purchased it only a few months ago - and not in 1976 after all. Never mind the fact that reports are now surfacing that the ossuary was circulated for sale several months ago as well:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...sID=0&listSrc=Y

The truth will out

Last week, an East Jerusalem dealer who comes from a well-known family of Bethlehem antique sellers said that the ossuary circulated among dealers a few months ago. A well-known Israeli collector said that a year ago, the ossuary was offered to him by a dealer from the center of the country. "I chose not to deal with it," he says. "Why get involved, who needs this headache?"

During the interrogation of Golan, the IAA investigators tried to find out when, exactly, the sarcophagus was purchased.

Golan claimed that Shanks was mistaken. "I bought the sarcophagus 35 years ago, about the time of the Six-Day War," he told his interrogators. Golan was then just 16. "He knows the law better than I do," says Ganor. "The guy gave a version that is in accordance with the law. He said he has had it for 35 years, and now I have to prove that this is not the case."

So now that we understand that Golan is a liar, why should we trust him?

Nope. That is not the purpose of insurance. The purpose of insurance is to replace the item, or the value of the item if damaged or lost.

Moreover, the fact that this piece of stone was going to be xhibited abroad and examined by scholars pretty much uarantees that it would have gotten the "kid glove" treatment.

So would you care to try again, since your first defense failed?

And while you're at it - can you explain why Golan decided to create a fictitious story of purchasing it in 1976, when the facts show he purchased it only a few months ago?

HuH?

But Golan didn't know that it was real, remember? At least, that's what the mighty JP Huffenstuff said before. Golan was a Jew, and most Jews didn't know that Christ supposedly had a brother named James. Here are your own (borrowed) words:

SW point out that there are many Christians who do not even know that Jesus had a brother. They also report that Golen would have been no different than most Jews in not recognizing the inscprition's importance, and in part because the name "James" actually reads "Jacob".

So in Golan's mind, there shouldn't have been any concept of "real", as in the "real" ossuary of James, brother of Christ. Unless, of course, you're not coming around to the reality that Golan knew full well what he was dealing with?? As a result of his meeting with Lemaire? Which would, of course, mean that he had full knowledge of that value, when he failed to disclose the inscription (and its relevance) at the time he filed with the IAA for the export license. Which pretty much invalidates an earlier wipe-your-rebuttal that you tried to give, JP Holdthetoilettissue.

Irrelevant question. If Golan thought that he was in possession of a marketable item, he would've done what anyone would do - roll the dice, and take his chances. But before it can be exhibited and possibly sold, Golan first has to get it out of the country and defeat any claims of Israeli state ownership. If Golan can't get it out of the country and establish personal ownership of the ossuary (as opposed to Israeli state ownership), then he wouldn't even get his chance. And it would also affect the price, down from $1M to only $200K:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...sID=0&listSrc=Y

"If the ossuary can't be sold abroad," says Robert Deutsch, "we can assume that the Israel Museum or the Bible Lands Museum will show an interest in it, but then its price will probably drop to $200,000."

My paranoia?

I think you'd better have your mommy help you sound out the big words, JayPeePee.

The quote about the Tourism Ministry isn't one of my comments. It's just the quotation from the article. You can't even give the correct attributions for comments, can you? No wonder your arguments are so full of, um...let's see, what is the technical term....

ah, yes: poo-poo.

Once in awhile, even a blind archer manages to hit the target. That's obviously the same principle in action, whenever you manage to get something correct.

And as for my past - do you think they'll find out that:

* I'm a squirrely prison librarian who adopted a pompous pseudonym in order to satiate my own ego?
* And then lied about it?
* So I inflated my own past credentials and made my job sound REAAAALLY scary and dangerous?
* And then got laid off?
* And now beg money on the internet, instead of looking for a real job to support myself?

So do you think they'll find out all that stuff? Cause I sho' nuff wouldn't want them to know I was such a miz'rable wretch as that.

Of course they do; silly, silly JayPee Moulding:

* Golan insures an artifact for $1M,
* exhibits it internationally,
* wants it authenticated, but
* won't provide any details on its provenance, AND
* can't explain serious discrepancies about the year and person from whom it was purchased.

You can't have it both ways. If you want something authenticated, then background data is necessary.

(On fundies misinterpreting the IGS statement about the ossuary's authenticity)

Bzzt. Irrelevant comment. My response to Haran was to address the general reaction among ignorant christians, about of the announcement of the ossuary. Many fundibots did misinterpret what the IGS said - not surprising, fundies tend to be deficient in science. This is just another example of that sad educational shortcoming embarrassing them.

So your comment on what SW think about the geology doesn't refute my claim,nor does it make the reasoning behind my comment erroneous. I wasn't discussing SW or their position. You responded to a position I wasn't even discussing.

In other words, you're shooting blanks - again.

Unless you can prove otherwise?

Moreover, let's see your demonstration that one link informs or influences the validity of all links on the same site. Use both sides of the paper if necessary.

Another case of the Great JP Hazythought's reasoning skills. Answering his own questions. Too bad you didn't just read the letter in the first place, and save yourself the trouble of asking.

I suppose you want your mommy to cut your food up for you as well, don't you?

1. Lupia first points out that patina and biovermiculation are going to be the keys behind his claim to forgery, and he explains what they are.

2. He points out that the ossuary had plenty of both, except around the area of the inscription.

3. The excuse offered for that, was that the inscription had been cleaned off.

4. Lupia counters that such a cleaning process is impossible.

5. So Lupia's conclusion is that the patina is forged, and has flaked off.

That is what he says when he comments "It is possible to forge patina but when it is it cracks off. Sound familiar?" Moreover, had you bothered to research it, you would have found the same in Lupia's online correspondences:

Dear Sir/Madam:
I do not know if you cover stories about antiquities fraud but the best case in history is now under way.
The ossuary’s authentication process is not so much dependent on paleography as it is on scientific analysis of the limestone and its patina. This process is the key to authentication primarily because inscriptions with authentic-looking paleography can be faked and it is very difficult to determine. Whereas, limestone and its patina can be subjected to the rigors of exact sciences and data amassed is impartial. The reports on the patina published in BAR by the Israeli Geologic Survey were inadequate to affirm or confirm the patina as authentic since it appears that their principle concern was to investigate the presence of chemicals or pigments that would reveal forged vs. authentic formation. This is insufficient and naive as a scientific approach since I have already explained how forged patina could be produced without the use of modern materials. How do you clean silica-based patina off limestone without a sharp scrapper, chisel, high-speed drill or other instrument without leaving physical trace evidence of their use? According to their report there was no evidence of any modern tool being used anywhere in the inscription. So I ask how could such a cleaning have occurred? The only scientific answer I know is that forged patina cracks and flakes off, natural patina never does since it has an atomic bond with the limestone that crystallizes in such a manner that cracking and flaking off is an impossibility. This is a key observation that reveals the patina could not be authentic. Those who insist the patina is authentic must satisfactorily explain how the cleaning of patina off the inscription and completely out of the grooves of several letters was accomplished.

Big 'ol honkin' YAWN.

When one is dealing with stone and the chemical properties of its constituent elements, it isn't necessary to see it in person. Moreover, it's not like this is the first or the only ossuary that's ever been discovered. Rahmani has catalogued literally thousands of them. So your whine about seeing the ossuary in person doesn't hold water.

But of course, you still consider AiG and their young-earth creationism to be a valid scientific source, so it's no wonder that you don't realize that valid conclusions can be drawn without first-hand observations.

Which doesn't contradict Lupia at all.

What? You don't understand how that could be so? Then your ignorance of geology is showing. Hint: use google to hunt this information down.

In order to explain it to YOU, I'd have to enroll you in a basic reading comprehension course.

1. Who said I get my information from infidels?

2. "Care to provide a link" - how ironic, especially coming from you. Just use google.com - isn't that how you provide "links" to your opponent's arguments, after all? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for....the pretentious fraud?

1. There's nothing out-of-date about it.
2. You've failed to show anything to the contrary.

Wow; that was easy. Gee, JayPee - got anything left in your bag of tricks, except random baseless aspersions and wistful hopes?

(Regarding Meyers being cautious about the authenticity of the ossuary)

Unnecessary to ask him - he himself indicated that the best way to settle the question was to have an international panel of experts - but that's information I doubt you have, since it can only be obtained by reading the article.

But as for making assumptions about what Meier thinks, well, guess what? It was YOU who were saying earlier:

Meier's comment is nice, but doesn't really say anything useful. He's taking care like he should as one who has no relevant training in the subject of paleography.

So right back at you: you asked Meier why he was being careful? If so, provide evidence of the communication between you and Meier. Good luck.

Age of the comment is irrelevant. You've yet to produce any evidence that Meier's viewpoint has changed. Nor have you shown any reason why he might have changed it.

You're just tossing out random handwaves, in the hope of creating a distraction from the fact that Meier, a respected scholar, is not in the authenticity camp.

Laughable comment, since you failed to demonstrate:

1. how you decided that Meier was taking care like he should as one who has no relevant training in the subject of paleography.

2. why comments from Nov 2002 are "out of date", being only four months old;

3. any evidence that Meier has changed his position

Sounds like you need to spend a little more effort on "show and tell" yourself, JayPee.

The point at hand was to address your earlier crippled claim that:

There is also more patina in the area of the second half of the inscription, indicating a slightly different mix of chemical elements in the stone."

The IGS report does not substantiate this at all - it examined six different patches, and did not report any differences in the chemical mix of elements in the stone. Indeed, that is to be expected; it's not a large piece of stone, and to expect it to vary that widely within a single small piece is, um, grasping at straws. Moreover, had there been differences, then the chemical analysis report would have included a range for the given chemical values, instead of a single number.

Remember, it is your claim that such differences were substantial enough to account for the differences in how the scribing of the letters appears on the stone itself - that's a substantial difference, more than just minute trace differences that would appear under a scanning electron microscope.

You, Shanks and Witherington are all playing in the same haystack here. In other words, your claim is broken.

Well, just goes to show how unreliable your examination is. Please point to the section that "allows for such differences". Highlight it in bold.

Yes, I know - the IGS report refutes your earlier claim. You're the one who originally claimed a difference in composition, dolt. Here are your own words again:

There is also more patina in the area of the second half of the inscription, indicating a slightly different mix of chemical elements in the stone."

What remains to be answered is: why did you claim that any such difference in composition existed in the first place?

I know far more of what I'm talking about than you do - and the fact that you don't understand the material only underscores your ignorance. Let's review:

1. The material I provided is not irrelevant - you claimed a difference in the chemical elements of the stone, yet the IGS geological evaluation does not support that, so the material I provided is far from irrelevant, it is EXACTLY on point;

2. You claimed that the difference was pronounced enough to affect the scribing of the letters in the two halves of the inscription, yet you produced exactly zero evidence to show that any such difference in chemical constituency would have the result of making the letters harder to cut; and to top it all off

3. You don't seem to realize that you made this claim, and are now trying to back away from it

Folks, we have a special treat for you tonight - all the way from Florida - it's JP Huffenstuff doing the backpedal ballet.

Unnecessary. Please pay attention.

I'm theorizing that:

1. SW are looking at these cleared-off letters, observing the visual and physical differences, and

2. Not wanting to admit that two hands are responsible, but faced with several letters that are different,

3. are themselves hypothesizing that the cause is a difference in the patina of the limestone, which

4. makes scribing the letters in the first half of the inscription more difficult, than in the last half.

That doesn't mean that such a thing is geologically or chemically possible. Since neither S or W are geologists, they might freely (and even with good intention) hypothesize about this, not knowing whether or not their idea had any basis in actual geology.

Indeed, I think their statement - that chemical differences were so pronounced as to affect the scribing - is a desperate and wild idea, forced upon them by the biased desire to make this ossuary genuine, no matter what the cost - but hey, you'll have to go to SW to get a justification for it.

*Sigh*. Idiot. PAY ATTENTION.

It's not an argument - it's a hypothesis as to what might be causing Shanks & Witherington to launch themselves into the desperate idea that a chemical difference in the stone is the root cause behind the two halves of the inscription looking different. Their position is ridiculous; I'm only trying to guess as to what is causing them to go out on such a desperate limb.

They would not have to contradict. As pointed out before, Lupia's belief is that the IGS only focused on the question of chemicals or pigments.

The reports on the patina published in BAR by the Israeli Geologic Survey were inadequate to affirm or confirm the patina as authentic since it appears that their principle concern was to investigate the presence of chemicals or pigments that would reveal forged vs. authentic formation.

Lupia's hypothesis is that the patina was forged, since simple cleaning of genuine patina would leave scratch marks:

How do you clean silica-based patina off limestone without a sharp scrapper, chisel, high-speed drill or other instrument without leaving physical trace evidence of their use? According to their report there was no evidence of any modern tool being used anywhere in the inscription. So I ask how could such a cleaning have occurred? The only scientific answer I know is that forged patina cracks and flakes off, natural patina never does since it has an atomic bond with the limestone that crystallizes in such a manner that cracking and flaking off is an impossibility. This is a key observation that reveals the patina could not be authentic.

Note that nothing the IGS says contradicts Lupia's point about biovermiculation. Nor did you offer any rebuttal.

Done. Good luck.

Toto

This is a bit hard to follow out of context. (It would help if you had the TheologyWeb smilies for emphasis.) You might also provide a glossary of insults - I gather JPH is calling you Sauerbraten? That certainly raises the tone of the discourse.

Sauron

I tried that - but the IIDB software puked, because of too many emoticons.

I suppose I could re-edit it to include my "original" comments in italics?

Saurbraten
Mauron
Lizard Being
Etc.

The maturity of his insult glossary just goes on and on.

Calzaer

But "Jay PeePee" is so much more mature, right?

Sauron

If you note, I never defending the creative namecalling as mature. Robert Turkel sets the tone for the debate. I merely follow his lead. When debating Blake Rheas, my tone is careful, courteous and scholarly. I merely reflect back whatever tone the opponent wants to take.

And let's remember - it's Turkel who is trying to make a homebased career as a serious christian apologetic - not me. I'm just in this for the sport of hunting.


Moroever, I'm trying to prove a point - to show the mods that Turkel's ad hominem and juvenile behavior is tiresome, and calls into question his self-appointed role as an apologetic. You might think that any rational moderator would immediately see that point - but the mods over there don't see it that way at all. So far, they enjoy it - they think it adds "spice" and "flavor" to the debate. They encourage the behavior when Turkel engages in it, because (naturally) he's on *their* side of the fence.

Maybe by drilling it into their heads the hard way, and literally choking the board with that kind of behavior, they might change their mind. Shoe's on the other foot, so to speak.

I notice that you're a new user. Are you from Theologyweb?

Haran

I'm just curious, were you including me as one of these so-called "ignorant christians" and "fundibots" who "tend to be deficient in science" and have a "sad educational shortcoming embarrassing them" because that is how you feel about me?

Further, I think there are Christians, myself included, who definitely understand the significance of the IGS findings and the likelyhood that the ossuary would have probably come from the Jerusalem area due to history.

First, provide John Lupia's curriculum vitae. Where does his expertise lie? Are there other experts that agree with him? Or is his a lone opinion? Might his catholic faith play any role in his analysis?

As to all the rumors about Golan (and that's what they are at the moment because nothing has been proven), even if he acquired the ossuary illegally what difference does this make toward the authenticity of the inscription since many top scholars seem to believe the inscription is not a modern forgery?

Finally, if the ossuary inscription might very well be ancient (even you seemed to admit that it might be an "ancient forgery"), then why even blast Golan so hard? What exactly is your goal? It seems as if it is simply to try and discredit anyone and anything that has anything to do with saying that the ossuary and its inscription might be authentic. What kind of critical thinking is this?

What are you trying to prove with all this? That Golan might have broken an Israeli law regarding antiquities to satisfy an engrossing hobby, or to prove somehow that the ossuary inscription is inauthentic?

Sauron

I don't know enough about you yet, to decide if you fall in that category. But to set your mind at ease, no - I wasn't specifically thinking of you, when I wrote that text. I was thinking of the many fundie web pages that I've seen, all of them trumpeting their terribly misinformed conclusions about what the IGS actually said.

That's nice. Perhaps these enlightened christians you talk about could spend some time explaining to the fundibots

1. the difference between "nothing inconsistent with" and "definitively proves". They read the former, and assumed the latter; and

2. the clarification that the IGS issued, which admitted that there are no chemical or geological markers in the MT Scopus limestone that allow it to be positively localized to the Jerusalem area - and what such a statement means for claims that the IGS said that the limestone was "definitely from" Jerusalem


It was provided with the first reference. Go read it again.


Not true. There are elements of data that contradict Golan's story. Several are found in the Ha 'Aretz article. The article quotes several people who are in a unique position to know the truth - such as the inspector from the IAA.

Rolling all the way backward to the original pot to Blake Rheas, which started this discussion: I was going over the points of provenance about the ossuary that raise questions about its authenticity. Turkel has tried to dismiss away such concerns as irrelevant. yet Golan's dishonesty with regards to questions of provenance is very relevant to the question of authenticity.

I realize that your point is: "just assume that Golan is a lying thief, trying to make a buck. That doesn't impact or inform the question of the authenticity of the ossuary." Unfortunately, it does. Without knowing answers to questions like

* where was it found?
* what cave?
* when?
* among what other artifacts?

we will never be sure of its authenticity. We know, for example, that there was a lively trade in ossuary manufacture in Jerusalem, and that ossuaries quarried in Jerusalem did indeed find their way to Jericho, to be used in burials there. Suppose this ossuary was actually discovered in Jericho, but brought to Jerusalem because it's a more lucrative market for Holy Land artifacts. He brings it to Jerusalem, and claims it is from a burial there - all in accordance with church legend about the death of James. But in point of fact, that means whoever this James was on the inscription, that he would have died in Jericho. But there are no early church inscriptions about James dying or being buried in Jericho. So that one fact alone would cast serious doubts about the authenticity of the ossuary.

As for your claim that "many top scholars seem to believe....". Haran, the fact of the matter is that many top scholars believe the opposite. And if you will re-examine what I said in the beginning, it was that:

1. the ossuary box itself is most likely genuine;

2. there does not exist a scholarly consensus on the inscription yet;

3. Therefore without such consensus, Shanks and Witherington rushed their book to print prematurely - one can only wonder why; and

4. Oded Golan has some serious questions to answer, because his involvement appears to be less than honest and fraught with conflicts of interest

To establish a basis for points 1-4 above.

And note that you seem to have missed the same point that Turkel missed: being ancient would not prevent the script from being forged. That's what "an ancient forgery" means, Haran.

You're sadly mistaken about my motives.

Steven Carr

So the fact that Golan appears to have lied, changed his story, tried to deceieve people about the provenance of this artifact, which was insured for ONE MILLION DOLLARS, does not have any bearing on its genuiness?

But the fact that somebody is a Catholic leaves his analysis under suspicion of being biased?

Is this a double-standard? Do Catholics really rank lower than confessed liars in the credibility stakes?

Vorkosigan

Unless they support the ossuary, like Fitzmeyer.

Vinnie

What specifically was that in response to?