Ted Hoffman

Wow Sauron, You really are out to beat JP at his game in his own court. Good luck.
I had to "collect the following"
I think JP's approach, like all cowardly, insecure little children, is to intimidate and embarrass people out of an argument. If you have the stamina, you could just beat him at it.
I can see you are doing okay.
For someone who invited Mythers to a "duel" by referring to them as freaky dickies, pull no punches absolutely. Maybe the hes been hiding the glass jaw behind insults. Take him!

Hasn't Doherty been published (or is it "mentioned") in Journal of Higher Criticism at Drew University in New Jersey?
Isn't Price a Myther?

Ted Hoffman

Doherty appears twice actually"
JHC 2/1 (Spring 1995)
Earl Doherty
"The Puzzling Figure of Jesus in John Dominic Crossan's Birth of Christianity: A Critical Discussion"
and
JHC 4/2 (Fall 1997)
Earl Doherty
"The Jesus Puzzle: Pieces in a Puzzle of Christian Origins "

Haran

Anyone who states that the ossuary and its inscription are definitely authentic or definitely inauthentic are rather biased in my opinion. I lean toward authenticity due to the scholars and information that I have read.

As to me, I am an computer engineer with background in math and physical science. My hobby is biblical history and languages, specifically textual criticism and paleography. I am well-read in many doctorate level books and journals on these favorite issues of mine. Perhaps you are familiar with my response to Dr. Altman's views?

I read it. According to that, he is not an expert in the appropriate field. I suppose I was looking for more information, like any applicable scholarly journals he has published in, etc....

As far as the faith question. It was simply a question. He appears to be Catholic. I have been told many times by people here that my faith plays a part in how I view things (although I feel it plays a very small part). I asked because there is some controversy because of how many Catholics view the "brother" relationship between James and Jesus. I'm sure you know that.

Though I think he may have some credible information, he was also one of those who rather quickly and confidently denounced the ossuary, sort of like those Christians you hounded about calling it definitely authentic.... I would rather hear about an applicable journal article or scholar in the field, etc., who believes the same. So far, all I have to go on confidently is the IAA report. Though one can say from this that the ossuary, through probabilities, came from Jerusalem, you are right to say that there is some doubt and that it might at a lesser probability have come from somewhere else.

As I have been discovering lately, the press can report things incorrectly. I have a problem trusting their information. Perhaps that is my own fault. I will wait until he is convicted of something before I judge him.

How familiar are you with archaeology from this area, Sauron? Do you realize how many artifacts with similar backgrounds have been authenticated? It is only when something like this is such an astounding find that it is questioned so vehemently.

For instance, the first Dead Sea Scrolls were sold to scholars in a market. No provenance. They shared many of the properties you mention above. They were also, in the beginning, considered inauthentic. This just seems like another similar case.

What about the important seals that are in private collections? There are many artifacts now considered authentic which were strongly questioned.

I think we are crossing definitions here. I mean that many top scholars (maybe I can find the time to compile a list) believe that the ossuary is ancient (authentic) and the inscription is ancient (authentic). By authentic, I do not mean that they believe it belongs to THE James, brother of Jesus the Messiah.

Most top scholars in the appropriate field paleography and epigraphy seem to believe that the inscription is ancient (not a modern forgery). There is some discrepancy over whether they believe it is in two hands, but even though P. Kyle McCarter believes this, he still says it could refer to James brother of Jesus. Even with this small discrepancy, several top paleographers believe it is in one hand, including arguably one of the top paleographers (whose book on Jewish scripts is still a standard for scholars today), Dr. Cross. I have read this work to form a better opinion of the ossuary inscription. Have you read this standard paleographical work to help in understanding the inscription's script?

There is plenty of heavy scholarly weight to lean on at the moment in believing that the ossuary's inscription is in one hand, ancient, due to the script style - in the first century, and possibly referring to James the brother of Jesus.

Ok.

I agree. However, there are well-known and reputable scholars on the side of authenticity.

Scholars are experts. They write from their opinion. They do not need consensus. They make the consensus.

That said, Shanks and Witherington are not saying that the ossuary is definitely that of James brother of Jesus. They are saying that they think it probably is, and have some pretty good data and scholars backing them up.

Scholars write controversial books. At least they waited longer to put their information out than either of your sources did - Dr. Altman or John Lupia.

I agree things seem strange with him, but I will wait before calling him a thief and liar. Besides, these things make it sound as if he broke into some museum and took an artifact. Please remember that if he did anything, it was to break and Israeli law governing artifacts. I'm not even sure we have any laws like this governing artifacts in the US. I suppose it seems to me more comparable to those who break the law here by copying music CDs and sharing them on the web...

This is kind of one of those "duh" statements. I know that you meant by an "ancient forgery". What I was trying to get across is that I don't see how Oded Golan's reputation even matters if the ossuary inscription is an "ancient forgery", because this seems to rule out "modern forgery". If you are saying that it is simply because we don't know where he got, then why slander him? Why not just say, we don't know where he got it? This information might help, but it has not been necessary with past artifacts. I suppose it is only because this one deals with Jesus.

This is simply how it comes across to me when you use scholars who are not experts in the applicable fields, outdated articles, articles that quote questionable sources, etc. It's find if you want to find and quote Naveh's complete views or other experts and applicable journals. Otherwise, I see rumors and non-experts talking about things from a lack of experience.

Haran

I simply asked a question. I do not know. My faith apparently makes some around here question me. Might his Catholic faith lead to him believing that it might not be real because of how he might view the relationship between Jesus and James? I don't know, Steven, but people here seem to think that worring about faith biases are important.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Perhaps I am being sensitive, but if you are referring to me as a "liar" because of my stupid King Arthur stunt, then I would simply like to say that you don't really know me. Even as King Arthur, I presented reputable, scholarly information. The only thing that I misrepresented were my beliefs and who I really was. I did this because I was trying to play a part similar to some that I have interacted with. I regret it. I have never done this anywhere else, especially in scholarly forums, and I never would. I would also not do this in my day to day life. If you wish to refer to me as a liar, then I can only say that you do not really know me. I'm am sorry that you view me that way.

CX

I believe Steven is referring to Golan, Haran, not you. I doubt many people remember the KA debacle nor your part in it. (Except for the fact that you've dredged it up. )

Haran

Oops. Well, good. Then maybe my feelings of guilt will reflect how much I hate what I did. I do not wish to be seen as a liar when I try my hardest to be unbaised and present good information.

Steven Carr

I was referring to Golan as a confessed liar.

As for presenting reputable, scholarly information as King Arthur, I asked on
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...&threadid=1577 how 'qatan naar' should be translated, in the example *you* gave (1 Kings 11:17), and the Christians said (correctly) 'little child', until somebody reminded them that the party line was to call them 'youths', after which the rabid abuse of atheists started - read the thread and see.

Naturally, under cover of 'context' - the context being that they cannot defend what the Bible says as being morally acceptable.

Christians don't present reputable, scholarly information. The cause comes first for them, and facts are interpreted to suit.

Toto

I do not recall King Arthur presenting much scholarly information compared to the volume of abuse and bad arguments. I suspect you have not completely come to term with that incident and what it means about you.

Sauron

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Steven Carr
I was referring to Golan as a confessed liar.

Indeed. By now, Golan should be used to doing the perp walk:

http://rd.archaeological-center.com/...d-golan1.shtml

About three months before the case was covered by the media, the looting inspection unit of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) had begun investigating the case of the Jehoash inscription (JI). Their main suspect became Oded Golan, and they applied for a warrant to search his apartment.

There they discovered several documents, including a letter he had sent to his lawyer's office claiming that he was the owner of an ancient stone, purchased some time earlier. In addition, they found drafts of the booklet brought together with the JI to the Geological Survey of Israel before it was examined there for its authenticity. They also found a photo of Golan with the JI, several photos of the JI at Golan's stores, and a letter to somebody explaining why Golan preferred not to expose his name in relation with the JI. Another find was a letter from an Arab antique dealer named Abu Yassir (who died two years ago), allegedly confirming that Golan bought the JI from him two years ago.

The same night, the IAA investigators searched several offices and storehouses in Tel Aviv, all belonging to Golan. The following day Golan was interrogated under oath at the Jaffa branch. Later he was interrogated five more times under oath.

Haran

It seems that all of the threads I posted as Haran and King Arthur cannot be found under search except where I was "revealed". That seems like a rather biased decision.

Thus, I can't go back to look at some of my wording and use of scholarly material.

Regardless, I used well-known scholars to back up my points on this issue, as well as my own knowledge of Hebrew (as opposed to the simple ability to look up words in a lexicon), and linguistic similarities with other ancient semitic languages (this is an accepted practice used by scholars - even though it was rejected here). Therefore, I do not feel that I presented disreputable sources. There are also respected translations which contain what I spoke of, if I remember right.

Oh well, I sure don't want to get into that mess again, since that's what started it all. I doubt anyone here will listen or really read the sources I presented anyway.

If Christians do not present reputable sources, then neither do atheists. Both have their biases. This is an inexcusable and poor generalization.

Facts can be interpreted separately from faith. John Meier has an excellent description of this in A Marginal Jew.