keyser_soze

Indeed, but to be unable to see the differences, I think he is having worse problems than that!

Haran

Whatever...

First, I am not familiar with the specifics of Israeli law regarding ancient artifacts. I, therefore, do not know whether someone would be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony for what actions.

Second, it seems somewhat surprising to me that Golan could be charged with a felony for recently purchasing an artifact from an antiquities dealer (if in fact he did so which no one has proven). Would not the antiquities dealer be the one who had obtained the artifact illegitimately?

Third, it seems arogant, cruel, and unjust to judge Golan guilty before being proven so, and that by circumstantial evidence and rumors.

Fourth, I still do not see how his possible guilt has anything much at all to do with whether the ossuary and its inscription are authentic (i.e. ancient and not necessarily that of James brother of Jesus).

I don't think I'll bother with Golan much more. If he's guilty, then so be it. He will be guilty of illegally obtaining an ancient artifact. If not, then those out for his blood will look pretty foolish and cruel.

Considering, as I said earlier, that many top scholars (Cross, Yardeni, McCarter, Fitzmyer, Lemaire, and others) see the ossuary and its inscription as ancient (i.e. authentic), at least I will be in good "gullible" company.

Toto

These were posted on the JM list:

https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ch/007582.html


https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ch/007632.html

keyser_soze

Whoops! Should I pretend surprise?

Sauron

Here is his full c.v., as far as I can tell. Briefly, he is graduate level or higher in all three fields. And something which may interest you in particular, he is a member of the American Society of Papyrologists:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/sampair.htm

Biographical Note: John N. Lupia was trained in biblical studies and archaeology at Seton Hall University's Divinity School, (B. A. 1976). His graduate studies in biblical scholarship were at the Immaculate Conception Seminary. He studied under Msgr. James Turro, one of the contributors to the Jerome Biblical Commentary. He went on to graduate studies in art history and archaeology at City College of the City University of New York, (M. A. 1982). He served as an extern in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Frick Museum, and the Jewish Museum. He went on for his Ph. D. in art history at Rutgers University, studying under James H. Stubblebine. He served as his graduate research assistant for several articles and his book Assisi and the Rise of the Vernacular. Later, he was made a graduate fellow of Rutgers School of Information and Library Studies (MLS 1993). He served as an intern at Princeton University's Special Collections in the Marquand Art Library. He taught art history and archaeology for over fifteen years at various universities. He served as a leading contributor for Macmillan Publishers Dictionary of Art; 35 volumes, 1995. Mr. Lupia is listed in Catholic Biblical Associations Member Directory; Gale Publishers, The Directory of American Scholars; 5 volumes, 1998 edition; ABI's International Directory of Distinguished Leadership, 10th ed; and IBC's Directory. He has been a member of the Society of Biblical Literature; College Arts Association of America; the Catholic Biblical Association of America; the American Society of Papyrologists.
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/...john_lupia.htm

Hm. I disagree. He has degrees in both archaeology and art history. Given that the study of forgeries would crop up in both archaeology and art history, it isn't surprising at all to me that he would be aware of a method to forge patina. And a method to test for it.

Perhaps the pointer above will help.


And here we arrive at the problem. How, exactly, did SW find all this out? Simple - by interviewing Golan, and asking him what happened. But interviewing Golan is not the same as investigating the issue - they did not interview the IAA or the police. By taking Golan's word at face value, they not only expose their own bias, but they failed to perform the necessary rigorous investigation to validate the claim.

Set against Golan's testimony, we have:

1. evidence, including direct quotations from multiple people, appearing in more than one news article, by a respected newspaper, that the police were involved in this interrogation;

2. other evidence that the police were involved with a different investigation on the Jehoash inscription - to the point of getting a warrant - thus establishing pattern; and

3. other links, provided by Toto, showing even more police involvement, and again - to the point of getting a warrant as well as handcuffs.

This was more than just clarification. It was questioning pursuant to a criminal investigation. There comes a point when you just need to admit the obvious, Haran.

You still are missing my point. Even when they are accepted, the statements associated with the articles are not as "lofty" or as "certain" as they could be, precisely because their provenance is unsure. Accepted? Yes. But at a much lower rung on the "ladder of authenticity" than they might have been, if their provenance had been known.

True, but irrelevant. I mean, if we accept the fact that we'll always be dealing with uncertainty, even with fully provenanced items, then how much greater must the uncertainty be, when dealing with unprovenanced items?

You're basically stating that we can never be certain. But that's hardly a defense here; there is a gradient of certainty, and unprovenanced items will always fall below provenanced ones.


Actually, we can know. If the fragments sold in the market matched up with torn areas of the scrolls in the caves, and if the fabric was the same, contained the same types of pollen dust, etc. etc. etc. The scrolls in Khirbet Qumran formed a baseline of comparison, by which the fragments could be measured.

In that case, the situation is closer to someone stealing a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. If you find the entire puzzle somewhere, then you can be reasonably sure that the handful of pieces are of the same puzzle, providing that they complete the picture.

Needless to say, the ossuary doesn't fit into this kind of model. It isn't one part of a set of ossuaries, nor is there any baseline against which to examine it.


I also find that the quality of information is far higher without the high noise content. By focusing on the issue, and not the opponent, I'm able to bring more to the discussion myself.

Sauron

So basically, Golan should get away with antiquities theft because his personal view of that law is that it falls in the same category as speeding?

By the same logic, someone who shoots an abortion doctor should get away with it, because in their personal view it falls in teh same category as self-defense?

It isn't just the fact that he might disagree with the law. It's the fact the he apparently concocted a story designed to skirt around the law, and has been doing his best to *dodge* it.

You're mixing two issues here. Your first defense is that maybe he did break the law, but it's OK, because he doesn't consider the law to be very important.

Your second defense is that you don't believe there exists enough proof that he broke the law - regardless of Golan's opinion of that law.

I've addressed your first defense immediately above. As for your second defense, I refer you to my previous post, where I enumerated the involvement of the police, and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the provenance.

Toto

Are you surprised that the plot has come unraveled so quickly, before Witherington and Shanks can sell too many copies of their instantly outdated book? Or that the Israeli police are investigating this matter in the middle of war and uprising?

keyser_soze

Actually, I had assumed he was under watch PRIOR to this for the artifact previous to the ossuary. One has to wonder HOW long he has been under scrutiny.

Vorkosigan

Excuse me...



<wipes away tears> If laughter is the best medicine, that was just some serious therapy. I hope Sauron posts this over at TWeb, I can't wait to see Holding's reply to this one -- it should reach new heights of apoplexy and obfuscation.



Vorkosigan

Haran

Thanks. That is some good information that I have not seen. It mostly clears up the issue of his credentials.

I don't doubt that he has had exposure to these kinds of things. However, I'd be more likely to accept the analysis of a doctorate in geological studies on the patina than a doctorate in Art History. I think we have the judgement of geological experts in the IGS, and hopefully more studies are currently being conducted.

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.

I would assume that Shanks knows and interviewed more people than just Golan.

News agencies copy the same information from other sources. If one is in error, then they all are.

That said, you may be right about Golan. However, I will state it when it becomes obvious that he has been formally put away by proof of illegal action. So far, I still only see speculation. I don't see how you can say that any of this is more than speculation...

Take the case of the tools found (from Toto's new information), there are reasonable explanations for why he had those, however it is easy to spin it the opposite way as well. How do we really know if he's guilty of anything until they find a "smoking gun"?

I would sure hate to go up against you guys in court. It seem that you'd convict someone based on circumstatial evidence and hearsay.

I have not missed your point. I understand what you are saying. However, over time, much of that is forgotten, the controversy subsides, and the piece becomes a part of archaeological history. If an artifact is decided to be authentic (and it seems as if the James ossuary is headed that way), then it still has valid things to say about history, just not necessarily about where the artifact came from.

I think you're making this much easier than it would have been.

The geological study on the ossuary ties the ossuary in to Jerusalem with probability. If patina is tested on ossuaries in certains areas, even more information about where the James ossuary came from might be obtained.
Just like it took a while to find the provenance of the DSS, they might find where the James ossuary came from.