Vorkosigan

Really? I thought it existed prior to him, and assumed there was some kind of editorial board. Just great. We can expect it to push the Ossuary, then.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Yes. Very much so. One, in fact, was Dr. Rochelle Altman. I would say that she was rather nasty toward Lemaire and definitely toward me.

I have no idea. But I would imagine that Eisenman got a boost in sales of his book. And he certainly did no shy away from the publicity!

How do you know who did this? I've been told that malicious people scan the internet looking for computers they can access. Since Rochelle Altman is the one who made the claim. Has anyone confirmed it? How much does she know about computers? Could she have gotten a virus or something and assumed she was being attacked?

In my opinion, this was relatively normal scholarly practice, especially for a big find.

What??

Utterly bull.

Common' Vork! The first article in BAR left the whole issue as a "could it be?" kind of thing. The first person to really come out swinging was Rochelle Altman against the authenticity of half the inscription.

Vork, I know you know better than this awful rhetoric. You are intelligent and make many good points, but this stuff is just emotional silliness and you will not get me to believe otherwise.

Yes, Shanks and Lemaire could possibly have done a better job of presenting it to the scholarly community. Yes, Golan could be more cooperative and forthright.

However, Rochelle Altman could have been more polite, reasonable, and scholarly. Eisenman just used the situation to plug his books too. Other scholars that I have seen on other e-lists have been quite rude and unscholarly in their denunciations.

And there are others who are just as devoted to proving it a myth. Come on, Vork, see your (or at least others') biases!

I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief all along that the ossuary was a "fake", but I find your (and others') confidence in this disturbing.

Secular Pinoy

Huh? I thought it will be shown in Asia. Discovery Asia says that it will be airing it on June 29 at 21:00 (god knows what time zone this is).

godfry n. glad

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the Lamaire article which, when published in BAR, announced the find of the ossuary.

If so, your typification of that article is totally off-base. That article was a travesty of scholarly investigation. It was basically a propaganda piece. It mixed all sorts of misinformation with tales of "James the Just" and misled readers to think that this particular item was imbued with all sorts of significance....Long before any critical scholarship had any opportunity to inspect it.

"Jerusalem Stone"?... Poppycock. Such a descriptor is in the minds of interior decorators, not geologists.

Surety in the origination of the stone to the Jerusalem area?...Poppycock. It can't be proven, because the stone stratum from which the ossuary was hewn crops up all over the Middle East and has been quarried for millenia, including the four hundred years that the Hebrews used it to make ossuaries.
There is no way to distinguish stone from the same stratum, even if they come from hundreds of miles apart.

Can date it to the first half of the 1st century CE because the Jews stopped using them after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE? ...Poppycock. It has been clearly stated by experts in ossuaries, Dr. L.Y. Rahmani foremost, that ossuaries were used by the Judeans from the 1st century BCE through the 3rd century CE. It could be dated from the decoration...but that's NOT what the "scholarly article in BAR" said.

In short, that whole article was tripe that attempted to lead the reader to believe that the ossuary was what Lemaire and Shanks had decided it was...the bone box of the brother of the son of God.

It was not, as you say, a "could it be?" kind of thing at all. It was a calculated attempt to purvey innaccurate and misleading information.

The online teasers announcing the issue release were an even bigger travesty. I can only refer to BAR with disgust.

But then, I'll admit, I'm biased. I harbor the opinion that BAR is trash and Shanks is a venal, manipulating charlatan. And that was my opinion before all this came down. All this just reinforced my poor opinion of him and his cohorts.

godfry

Vorkosigan

Yes. Very much so. One, in fact, was Dr. Rochelle Altman. I would say that she was rather nasty toward Lemaire and definitely toward me.

After the personal attacks and the campaign against her started. I'd have been as nasty as Rochelle too.

I have no idea. But I would imagine that Eisenman got a boost in sales of his book. And he certainly did no shy away from the publicity!

The answer then, is "no," nobody on the forgery side signed a huge and ethically suspect book deal to use this fraudulent ossuary to promote their belief system.

How do you know who did this? I've been told that malicious people scan the internet looking for computers they can access. Since Rochelle Altman is the one who made the claim. Has anyone confirmed it? How much does she know about computers? Could she have gotten a virus or something and assumed she was being attacked?

Rochelle was not the only one.

In my opinion, this was relatively normal scholarly practice, especially for a big find.

Talking to the public is normal. Mobilizing public opinion against one's opponents, evil.

What??

The expertise, which you claimed supported authenticity, was irrelevant. All the people who claimed that the inscription was authentic were irrelevant experts. The relevant expertise, as I said from the beginning, is geochemical and geological, not epigraphic. People like Frank Moore Cross do not possess relevant expertise. One of the hardest judgments to make, Haran, is determining who has relevant expertise. Your side deliberately used people who did not have relevant expertise, or who had not performed relevant tests.

utterly bull.

That means "no," nobody on the forgery side did any such thing.

Common' Vork! The first article in BAR left the whole issue as a "could it be?" kind of thing. The first person to really come out swinging was Rochelle Altman against the authenticity of half the inscription.

Oh please. BAR has been an unabashed cheerleader of this thing from the beginning, quoting nonsense statistics, paying no attention to danger signals, and generally attempting to steer the debate in the direction of authenticity. There's no question where Shank's sympathy lies.

Vork, I know you know better than this awful rhetoric. You are intelligent and make many good points, but this stuff is just emotional silliness and you will not get me to believe otherwise.

If can't, after all the evidence, believe that the ossuary is a fraud, then I can hardly get you to take a rational look at the behavior of your side. Did you see where Witherington claims the IAA has a "vendetta" against Golan? Is there anything sicker than a "scholar" defending a probable forger against debunking? Your side completely abandoned sound reasoning and sound ethics over this one, so relieved were you all that you finally had an artifact to shove down the throat of mythicists. The level of relief on your side, Haran, is simply a measure of their desperation.

Yes, Shanks and Lemaire could possibly have done a better job of presenting it to the scholarly community. Yes, Golan could be more cooperative and forthright.

!!!!!!!! See what I mean? A man who owns a forgery workshop "could be more cooperative and forthright"?????

However, Rochelle Altman could have been more polite, reasonable, and scholarly.

She said it was a cheap fake from the beginning. She was DEAD RIGHT! It was a cheap fake. Some people didn't want to hear the message, so they attacked the messenger. That's your side, Haran. Where in Rochelle's initial posts was she nasty to anyone?

Eisenman just used the situation to plug his books too.

Examples.

Other scholars that I have seen on other e-lists have been quite rude and unscholarly in their denunciations.

No doubt. Some of us could hardly believe our ears. Apparently the possibility of a real Jesus artifact caused a general drop in IQ across the NT scholarly community. Wonder why......

And there are others who are just as devoted to proving it a myth. Come on, Vork, see your (or at least others') biases!

LOL. I had no bias here. Not until the personal assaults began. Then I just wanted to see the apologists eat shit and die after all the crap they handed out. I didn't really give a flying fuck in a rolling donut about the inscription as such; it doesn't prove a thing about Jesus, bogus statistical manipulation aside. <puffs victory cigar>

I don't doubt the sincerity of your belief all along that the ossuary was a "fake", but I find your (and others') confidence in this disturbing.

LOL. The evidence was there at the beginning. Some people just refused to see it. Many did not know how to think about it properly -- just look at the people who are still arguing about the authenticity of the inscription, as if that mattered! Others are so faith-committed they are still apologizing. I have no doubt that even if Golan were to confess, it wouldn't matter. Witherington would be out front spinning the next day. Really, he's wasted in the ossuary game; he ought to apply for Ari Fleischer's job.

Vorkosigan

Haran

I believe much of what you have said, Vork, is rife with speculation, blind faith in certain other scholars, and unadulterated vehement rhetoric.

By the way, yes, Rochelle's emotional rhetoric was no good from the beginning. Her article especially displayed this with comments like "blind as a bat". Also, if you think that it is reasonable for her to lash out at me and surreptitiously attack me on various forums and in email to others just because she had been wronged by others, then do I have that same right to do the same to you just because Altman wronged me? I don't think so.

Next, there is no "your" side, Vork. I have no side. How could I have a side when I've already said that I doubted the connection to James, brother of Jesus, in the first place?? Do you have more of a stake in it than you want to admit? Was your computer attacked? You seem to take it all so personally...

If it had been said to be authentic, would you not have challenged the committee's verdict? Judging by your comments earlier in the thread, you would have maintained your "position" regardless. You are asking me to accept what you probably would not.

Finally, don't continue to confuse "authentic" with "actually the bone-box of James, brother of Jesus"...

godfry n. glad

Okay.... Here's a bit of a follow-up:

I went to another forum, known for it's demanding that applying members "vet" themselves by showing that they have sufficient credentials to join, and there I posted the suggestion that others are asking about the credentials of the IAA commissions' members. I asked if CVs might be available or if anyone there knew any of the commission members.

The on-list response has been underwhelming. However, I get a private message from one of the Altman fan club, asking why I would want the CVs of the IAA commission members. When I noted that it was basically a "By what authority?" question and that I thought the request was reasonable, I get wrangling about how these "experts" don't expect to have to prove their credentials...they're "known" in their circles of expertise. When I asked why I should accept their judgement on the ossuary, I was given the "because they're a 'blue ribbon commission' established by the IAA.

Of course, my response is, "So you're saying that I should accept this on the basis of the IAAs reputation? Just like I was supposed to accept the IGS opinion on its reputation?"

Man... These people are prickly from beginning to end. I'd think that a request to show one's authority would have these folks waiving their credentials around for the ignorant rubes. But, no.... If we don't believe right off, then we're somehow deficient.

<deep sigh>

godfry

godfry n. glad

Here's Ronny Reich:

http://research.haifa.ac.il/~archlgy.../cv_reich.html

gng

Artemus

This was far from the norm for scholarly practice. The normal procedure is to first submit the work for peer review. Only after the peer review process has been completed, the work is accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, and the article is actually published is a public statement made. The fact that peer review was intentionally bypassed and it was first announced in the popular press made me extremely suspect from the begining. The peer review process would have demanded that the tests made by the IAA be performed before publication.

When the announcement was first made I couldn't help but notice the similarities between it and the original announcement of cold fusion in the late eighties. Turns out my suspicions were well founded.

Haran

Godfry,

Thanks for the research and your reasonable understanding of why someone should want to look into the committee. I haven't had the chance to look much. I only recognize Kloner (books), Reich (books), Yuval (from ANE list), and Horowitz (from ANE list) so far.

As to BAR, I just don't see it quite the way you do. If I had the article, I'd quote it, but I'm pretty sure they left the question open as to whether the box was actually that of James, brother of Jesus. I agree that they did sensationalize it, but I don't agree that they made the ossuary out as matter-of-factly that of James, brother of Jesus.