Haran

So, all the information about what was found is being witheld until Golan is prosecuted, I guess? It seems as if it would be good to let some of the information out so no one is fooled further. Maybe they just can't do that...

My point is that the extra publicity certainly didn't hurt her. She went out of her field to comment very publicly on the James Ossuary in advance of her book and received quite a lot of attention for her views. Not saying she necessarily did anything wrong, but it is somewhat curious...

Her bias was and still is evident. Come on... Her "blind as a bat" comment... That's called unnecessary, unscholarly, and biased rhetoric. I have my own suspicions about motive, but I'll leave it to you to find them (there are at least a couple that I can think of and they seem pretty obvious - others have mentioned them to me as well). Why wouldn't she have been a little more reserved as most scholars are in the initial stages of a discovery, even if they think something is a fake?

To me, and many others, she made what appeared to be very early and very over-confident judgements about the ossuary. I have a hard time believing you can't see that when most other scholars in the relevant fields held their opinions quietly for quite a while. If it had been me writing a similar article for authenticity, I believe I would have been mocked and insulted in addition to being called "biased" for using the same rhetoric that she did (look at Lemaire who only suggested the possibility that it might be the box of James, brother of Jesus - he now seems to stand accused of complicity). Please...

Toto

Dr. Altman used some colorful language, but that is not evidence of bias, only confidence. I can't see any financial or ideological reason she would have had to stake out a position.

As for Golan, in or out of prison, his reputation has to be questionable at this point, and his ability to take anyone else in is limited.

Haran

Hmm... I and others do see motive all too clearly... Oh well. Whatever. I doubt I'll convince you. No big matter now. If it is fake, then she should also let the subject alone. Funny how, even though she seems to have thought for a while now that the ossuary shouldn't be talked about, she has periodically brought it up on her own e-list anyway and then slammed others for continuing to discuss it after she brought it up... She's is the moderator, I guess.

Don't get me wrong here, I now agree. I just wonder why the authorities haven't already exposed whatever other frauds they suspect. You know? Again, maybe it's because they're still building a case against him. However, if there are other fakes out there that they know about, it would be nice if scholars could quit wasting their time on them. It would also be nice if they'd put away the responsible person.

Vorkosigan

Nothing curious about it. She was called into the case by the Israeli police.

What's biased about being right? Altman's "bias" consisted of being able to see what others could not. Moore Cross was right that the Ossuary inscription fell into the range of authenticated objects. What he didn't understand was that its heterogenuous composition was acceptable if it had come from an in situ object. Altman saw deeper than he did. She understood that its heterogenuity was of a particular kind, that of forgery.

Because a forger was about to make millions (remember our $2 million insurance plan?) on a spurious object. The public was about to be gulled out of thousands to see an artifact that was a fake (the ROM, on the other hand, made a tidy sum on the Ossuary). Time was urgent. Now that this event is over, you seem to be forgetting its actual course. You seem to have forgotten who was making the big bucks.

She was dead on. Altman had additional experience the others did not: working in forgery detection. She knew what she was looking at. They only seemed over-confident because most people did not know what they were doing when they looked at this thing.

Haran, the "revelant disciplines" are in forgery detection. The NT and epigraphic fraternity did not possess relevant expertise.

And lots of scholars did not keep their mouths shut. There were plenty of scholars who worked with Lemaire to promote this thing.

...and deservedly so, defending a forger and a fraud. Have you thought about the ethical implications of such behavior?

Lemaire said that there was a 97% chance that this was the box of James, the brother of Jesus. Remember his dating of this thing to 62 AD? Lemaire has been going around promoting this thing. Lemaire has been up to his ears in connection to fraudulent objects....Lemaire will get what he deserves.

Vorkosigan

Haran

By the way, her "colorful language" would probably be considered by most to be extreme rhetoric. This kind of language is mostly valueless to scholars. When you have a solid evidential case, you do not need extreme rhetoric, merely facts. Unfortunately, rhetoric works its magic on those who do not necessarily understand the actual claims that are made. The flowery and confident words sometimes convince others that the person really knows what they are talking about. This is the effect many "cons" rely on as well - use the lingo and sound confident.

Vorkosigan

They want a confession. There are more artifacts out there in private collections and in museums. If they can get him to cooperate, they can locate them easily.

It is hard to believe after all this time that you still don't get it. Those of us who came to the "fake" conclusion early did so because we had additional lines of evidence that others were unable or unwilling to recognize.

You're twisted. Altman had an ethical duty to expose this thing ASAP before anyone got taken in (ethics being a topic much neglected by the pro-Ossuary crowd). Thanks to the enthusiasm of Christian scholars for this thing, she was unable to stop the ridiculous ROM exhibit and subsequent bilking of the public. Fortunately a group of Israeli scholars was convened to annihilate this object. One shudders to think what would happen if Christian scholars had worked on it.

Vorkosigan

Haran

When? Why her?

If the answer is that she "had experience in detecting frauds", then what was that experience? Why was she so close to the investigation?

Has she written anything on frauds or is it just another thing that she seems to claim "expertise" in (like semitic scripts and logic)? Seriously. If I am supposed to believe that she is also an "expert" in forgery, then what are her qualifications in this area?

Ok. Here is a point that I think you may not be getting, Vork. She seemed to claim in her first public posts and publications to be an "expert" on semitic paleography. Her claim, to me, seemed obviously to be that because she was an "expert" in semitic paleography, she could tell that this was a forgery. I do not believe she said anything about the more hard sciences, yet this is what you seem to be telling me proves that the thing is a forgery. If her focus was on the paleography and she made mistakes (one pretty glaring one with the excised thingy), then it seems to me that she was right about the forgery by luck and not by knowledge. Are you seeing where I'm coming from yet? I'm not trying to be offensive. I just don't get why you are supporting her so. I mean, she claimed to be an "expert" in logic too on JesusMysteries, but she made logical errors as well. How are you so sure that she's not just making things up as she goes? Why does she seem to claim "expertise" in everything? Why does she not have the relevant degrees in geology (or whatever you say actually proves the inauthenticity of the ossuary), or semitic paleography? What/how many classes has she had on these subjects that she can claim "expertise"? What publications? Why doesn't she tell more about her qualifications? Sorry, I'm just not buying into it.

In other words, it seems that she was right by luck. Sure, a forger might write heterogenous script if he/she didn't know what they were doing. However, she seemed to be making the claim that it was because of that heterogenous script that it was a forgery. As you have said, this cannot point to forgery, though this seems to be the way she used it since she didn't seem to mention (or at least emphasize) the geological aspect (which is more important, right?).

I'm just not understanding you, Vork. How could she have known this from the paleography when she wrote her article? When she wrote her article, she could only, I believe, have known of the IGS report suggesting authenticity. So, it seems like your saying she already knew it was a fraud from the paleography? I'm sooooo confused.

If she was really so scared that the thing was going to make someone rich and she had to stop it, then why did she not say so? It seemed that she was only trying to use her "expertise" in paleography to claim that part of the ossuary inscription was a fraud, not that someone was fixing to get rich and she just had to stop it.

See what I mean? You seem to keep changing what is "relevant". If the relevant field is forgery. What are her qualifications? If the relevant field is paleography. What are her qualifications? If the relevant field is geology (or whatever relevant hard science you choose). What are her qualifications?

First, I myself would never have written something for authenticity. However, I would not have written something as quickly as she did against it either. As for the implications, if one did not know it was a fraud and one believed it was authentic, then it would be no more unethical to write about its authenticity than someone who believed it was a fraud writing about its inauthenticity.

Well. His reputation has definitely been tainted, but I'm not so sure it was very fair, especially if he honestly believed what he said and wrote. Or am I lose respect for yet another fellow human being?

Haran

I still do not understand why it was Altman's responsibility. Nor do I understand how paleography determined it was a fraud (since that seemed to be the major focus of her articles).

I do not think it is "twisted" to question the timing of her new book. This seems like an unnecessary and emotional response which I'd like to stay away from. I don't see how it is any more "twisted" than the claims made here about others and their books. Feels a little strange to think about it from the opposite perspective I guess.

And now the "enthusiasm" of those who were against the authenticity of the ossuary is now being used to slam Christians. Never mind that FMCross, a Christian, apparently did decide a while back that it was a forgery. Never mind that I also too now think it is a forgery. Evidence will usually convince those who are relatively unbiased (everyone is slightly tinged by their philosophical worldviews), Christian or otherwise. I'm sure if it was something against Christianity (like Secret Mark), it would be proclaimed from the rooftops as authentic (like Secret Mark has been by some). Even though you seem not to believe in the authenticity of Secret Mark, should I lump you in with all those for its authenticity and label you as biased anyway?

I just think you carry the "biased" stuff too far into generalizations, Vork. Please, please, think about it.

Peter Kirby

That sounds remarkably like poisoning the well.

I was not aware that attributing this letter to Clement of Alexandria would be something against Christianity. Perhaps you can explain.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

How so? Perhaps "against Christianity" was not the best expression. However, as the James ossuary could seem "good" for Christianity, Secret mark could seem "bad" for Christianity or at least its ideals. First, there is the implication that there was "hidden material" that was only revealed to those who were supposedly ready for it. Second, there is what Morton Smith and many others seem to take as Jesus' homosexuality.

It is not the "attribution to Clement" that is seen as a problem for Christianity as practiced by most Christians today, it is the supposed content of the Gospel of Mark.

Anyway, the point was that Christians are not the only ones with biases and that to color them all with the same brush, as Vork seems to be doing, is somewhat disingenuous. Do you not agree?

Everyone, no matter how unbiased they attempt to be (and I perceive you to be more unbiased than many, Peter), has some bias related to their "philosophical worldview". I recognize that I have biases as a Christian, but I honestly try to minimize those and look at the facts. I think it would be wise for others to try and recognize and and minimize their own biases.

The Secret Mark issue is really a sideline issue, though, Peter. Do you see any validity in some of the larger issues I have brought up with respect to biases and Dr. Altman? Anything you agree with or have similiar questions to me on, instead of things you disagree with? Just curious to know your own views on some of this banter.