Haran

Thanks for the words, Bede. I should give it a rest. Not many people will agree with me here even if I am right (one can't be seen getting too buddy-buddy with a Christian ). Altman wronged me, so I'm miffed and it is irritating to see people who haven't studied paleography and who don't even really know her qualifications state that she was an "expert" who "knew".

Vorkosigan

LOL. Maybe you should read some of Altman's articles on the net, Haran. And judge for yourself.

As for me, I am leaving this topic. Off to smoke a victory cigar, and contemplate the forger's forthcoming confession.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

But she was right that there were two hands.... Proof of the pudding and all that.

Actually, I thought the inscription was genuine, just hyped out of all proportion.

I only started to be suspicious when the box got damaged in transit.

Steven Carr

I'm waiting for the second , revised edition of Witherington's book.

Judging by the speed with which he wrote the first book, he should polish off the second edition in a couple of weeks, and it will be on the shelves in less than a month.

Haran

Vork, I think your post above containing the answers to my questions about Dr. Altman's qualifications says it all by not saying much. It seems to me that you have chosen to believe in someone whose qualifications you really don't know that much about - and that because you "like curmudgeons, and she's an original curmudgeon. That's really it. I just like her, for all her faults."

Was it the way it was done? Do the police know this for sure now?

Regardless, I still believe she is wrong on many of her points.

She is right now that she changed her wording to cover her own tail. She continued to deny that she was wrong about this for quite some time and then finally decided that "it was irrelevant". Then, why did she then seem to make such a big deal of it and defend it in the first place? Mighty convenient way to dismiss things without having to admit a big goof.

It is relevant because it reflects on her judgements as a scholar and on her ability to be forthright and admit when she has made a mistake. I have a very hard time trusting someone like this. Why do you not?

To say that the "excision" issue is "the only one you guys have to latch onto" is just not correct, Vork, and means you either didn't really read my article or you didn't understand the paleographical issues.

Incorrect according to FM Cross, a man that I'm sure has a "lifetime" more experience in semitic paleography than does Dr. Altman.

According to more qualified experts, it would have been hard to tell if this was the case or if the script was simply written inconsistently like the Caiaphas ossuary in the first place.

Incorrect to use such unscholarly language and probably incorrect judging by more qualified scholars.

Umm... How could she possibly know this? What I find interesting is that the second half of the inscription looks older and more worn than the first half - an observation noted, I believe, by some on the IAA committee.

In all probability by luck unless she had inside information that she wasn't sharing...

Haran

I have. I assume you're referring to stuff like her article on, I believe, the DSS where she spends time saying much the same things that she did in her discussions about the ossuary. I don't believe a scholar just because they can sound technical. Remember, I have read works on paleography. I still maintain my position with respect to her.