godfry n. glad

So...

Here's a question that's been raised on other forums and should be of interest here:

What is the opinion of Dr. L.Y. Rahmani, the world's acknowledged leading expert on Jewish ossuaries and evidently a curator or other staff member with the Israel Museum, on the ossuary and the Jake/Joe/Josh inscription?

Since I'm not sure as to whether Dr. Rahmani is either living or practicing, the next question would be what is the opinion of those who helped Dr. Rahmani in the compilation of his definitive tome on the topic?

Given the stories I have heard related about how the item was shipped out of Israel without the knowledge of the IAA, could it be that it was hurriedly removed to _prevent_ an assessment by Rahmani and his colleagues?

Just curious...

godfry n. glad

Sauron

Ha. And I remember Layman telling me how professional Witherington was, and that his credentials were unimpeachable.

Ha.

Egoinos

A few of my lecturers went to that conference thingy in Canada last week, if they mention anything, I'll be sure to let you know

Benjamin Franklin

Indeed. In the Lucan Census thread, Witherington was using the fact that Roman was angry with Herod as evidence of a census.

BF

Tercel

Since when does wanting a bit of money (I don't know how much he gets paid, but I don't imagine academics in his field usually earn a lot) count as impeaching credentials? (Assuming for a moment that is the reason he's writing) As long as everything he says in the book is true and as long as he accurately portrays the evidence as it currently stands I don't see what the problem is.
Writing a book isn't dishonest, nor does it show lack of academic ability, nor lack of sound judgement. And I, for one, would be very interested to read the book!

godfry n. glad

Well, Tercel, I think you lack the perspective of those who have frequented this board and become familiar with drippingly acid comments from Christian apologists about the publishing motives of HJ critics like Crossan, Mack, Wells, Doherty and others, who have been accused of riding the wave of popular interest in historical Jesus studies to publish books for popular interest to line their own pockets. These apologists have repeatedly held Witherington up as an exemplar of scholastic integrity, in contradistinction to the abovementioned authors, who has not, and evidently would never, stoop so low as to consider publishing on the whim of popular interest to enrich himself. It is not the act of publishing that has rankled, but that this exemplar has made hypocrites of the apologists (or may, dependant upon their reaction to said publication).

I am with you. I don't think publishing anything that might stimulate public interest to purchase and read one's thoughts on a topic would impeach one's integrity. That would depend upon the publication itself and its presentation. I look forward with interest to Witherington's product, although I doubt I will find it agreeable.

Likewise, I don't think that the publication of the thought-provoking works of Crossan, Mack, Wells, Dorherty, or any others engaged in the ongoing scholastic and public debate over the historicity and nature of the founding figure of Christian belief (barring perhaps Luke Timothy Johnson), has impeached their integrity. From my perspective, they have done a mitzvah.

I may be wrong, but I also doubt that the prior critical posters would begrudge Dr. Witherington his publication. They are merely commenting that he demonstrates the same humanity and level of integrity that those who have been excoriated by Christian apologists for doing the very same thing that Dr. Witherington has clearly stated he intends to do. Their criticism has been of those apologists, not Dr. Witherington.

Of course, the previous posters may feel free to correct me if I have erred.

Best,

godfry n. glad