Haran

Vork, I only acknowledge that a group of scholars in Israel concluded that the ossuary and/or its inscription (part of it?) is "fake" in some sense which I do not completely understand yet (and I'm not sure they even agreed). I stated from the beginning that I wasn't even sure I was convinced of the link to James, brother of Jesus, but I did think that the ossuary could be an important piece of history nonetheless. Therefore, I would still hate to see this thing dismissed by biases and prejudices.

As I said, it would be interesting to become more familiar with the scholars on this committee in order to determine the magnitude of possible bias. Some seem to be much more biased than others, whether theist or atheist.

A couple of warnings for both:

* Ignorance breeds confidence
* Pride comes before a fall

Vorkosigan

So what's going to happen to Golan?

Vorkosigan

Haran

I hate to burst your image of my incredible unacknowledged insight, but the inscriptions had already been pointed out in BAR by Joseph Fitzmyer... I simply followed the sources. It was probably known by most scholars (with the possible exception of one... ) from the beginning.

I, personally, am truly frustrated by the antics played out over this discovery. It just sickens me how polarized any discovery which pertains to Jesus becomes. I am truly frustrated that some immediately take up a new discovery like this as Christian relic and how others can so quickly and vehemently deny it. Can't we all just get along??

Peter Kirby

I know what you mean. But I, for one, have been waiting for a thorough scientific investigation of the artifact. It seems that we now have that, and so I don't need to withhold opinion any longer. The inscription is fake.

best,
Peter Kirby

Kosh

What about the bit about the inscription being in two hands? Has that been addressed in the new report?

Peter Kirby

The forger copied the script from various existing items, resulting in a mismatch in writing style.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

I can only hope so... I still have not heard all of the arguments. I do not take it lightly that some very influencial scholars have held that it was very likely authentic. I will be interested to hear their reaction.

Wasn't it the IAA that produced the first report confirming the authenticity of the ossuary? And now the same organization pronounces that it is inauthentic? Did I miss something?

godfry n. glad

If you're serious about this, I'd say start CV hunting online using the listing of commission members and their associated educational institutions. If you missed that listing, I think there's one in the article for which I posted up the URL....the one from _Archeology_.

Then, I'd recommend that somebody reobtain a copy of Rahmani's _Catalogue of Ossuaries in the Israel Museum_ and read the listing of colleagues that he thanks in his forward....match that to the names of the commission members...that should tell you who are Rahmani's protege's...or approximate it. I have a vague recollection of some of the names and think there are two or three that qualify.

Perhaps Toto can help us here?

Your warnings are well-taken. Would that Shanks and company had heeded them.

godfry

Haran

I am serious. I think it would be worthwhile to learn about them. After all, I'm not just going to trust anyone. I know of and have read books by some of the scholars in support of authenticity as well as a few of the early ones questioning it. However, I don't think I recognize many names on this committee yet, much less their tendencies.

You mean the one that I posted right before you and mentioned this?

That's a good idea.

I do not particularly appreciate the way it all has played out. I agree that it could have been done in a more scholarly way... I will not accuse Shanks "and company" of any wrong-doing, but I will watch their words and actions in the future.

Haran

I suppose that depends on whether he was the forger (of the JI at the least).