Layman

Why? No matter how this pans out, I'm sure many books and articles will end up discussing them.

This tells us a lot more about your own prejudics and biases than it does Witherington's.

A scholar loses all credibility because he writes a book that discusses a recent and potentially important archeological find?

You are the one who is losing credibility here.

Being more familiar with Witherington's work than you, I expect the book will seriously address the issues. But it appears there may be a division of labor in the book. Shanks discusses the ossuary and Witherington discusses James, Jesus' family, and early Christianity.

Since I've said from the beginning that I do not know that, even if true, this find could point to Jesus of Nazareth, you are just being insulting here.

Just what do you think my position is?

But I see you are poisoning the well again. Hedging your bets against acceptance in the scholarly community.

Hope springs eternal, Volk.

godfry n. glad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman

Hope springs eternal, Volk. [QUOTE]

Oh, that's clearly evident in the proliferation of websites trumpeting the "evidence" of an unauthenticated and problematic object that remains challenged by a significant number of authoritative scholars.

Nothing new, just more grasping at straws and ephemeral hopes by Christian polemicists....

godfry

Toto

More speculation on Christianity Today weblog

godfry n. glad

**chuckle**

Thanks, Toto.

So... What _is_ it with the Geological Survey of Israel? That's where the ossuary went first, too. Now this tablet. And...how is it that a _geologist_ can accurately date the inscription of a tablet? The GSI is a screamingly inappropriate bureaucracy to have pass on the authenticity of an inscription, particularly when the IAA and IM-J are readily available.

It sure sounds suspicious to me....

godfry

Jayhawker Soule

Was not some Israeli statistician to publish something?

Vorkosigan

A scholar loses all credibility because he writes a book that discusses a recent and potentially important archeological find?

No, he does when he takes a position on an artifact that is completely unknown, accepts a huge advance to write a tabletop puff piece, and works with a fanatic idiot like Shanks. But who knows? Maybe you are right and he'll turn out to be the sane one of the pair.

Vorkosigan

Haran

I completely disagree that it is one or the other. I'm sorry, but I sincerely doubt that Lemaire is a forger. His position is that of a scholar, analyzing artifacts that were presented to him. By your criteria, here, one could say that Dr. Rochelle Altman is in a position to do such a thing. In her latest report, she mentions (rather egotistacally, in my opinion, and in immitation of another scholar's comments) that her own works could be used by a forger. By your criteria, here, Michael, she could easily be a forger. For that matter, any other excellent scholar who deals closely with ancient artifacts.

I know you know better than this.

Scholars do that when their thesis is challenged. He wrote an article and was challenged. So, he is presenting his side of the story. Besides, I'm not sure what "audiences" other than the SBL meeting that he is trying to "convince". At the SBL meeting, he was simply presenting his point of view as he was requested to do. What other "audiences" have there been?

I see "rumors", and "rumors" that I consider unlikely until I hear some independent verification.

There are most definitely many conspiracy theories floating around about the ossuary. The obvious theories are that Dr. Lemaire, Oded Golan, Hershel Shanks, and/or someone else has conspired to present a forgery to the world.

These silly conspiracy theories crop up with every discovery. You earlier reminded me of another article in BAR that I read back in 1997 about the Temple Receipt inscription (which I noticed you said no more about). Unfortunately, the similar things were said about it and probably the collector who owned it as have been said about the James ossuary and its owner. Fact is that, as many gullible Christians unquestioningly see the ossuary as that of James the brother of Jesus Christ, many "skeptics" are just as gullible in falling for false scholarship and conspiracy theories that dogmatically assert discoveries that support the Bible as a frauds!

Was there a list of scholars who were supposed to have seen it before it left? I believe that Ada Yardeni, Frank Moore Cross, and Dr. Fitzmyer saw it... I see no real problem though I would also like to hear Rahmani's views. Is he alive? Many people make the mistake of assuming certain scholars are still alive when they are not. I have no idea.

Unless the attacks came directly from someone involved in the supposed conspiracy, then I assume some malicious people do those kinds of things when they are angry. It is despicable and wrong no matter how much they disagree with someone's opinion.

At the packer's before being shipped? This is the first I have heard of it. Can you point me to something or someone who can substantiate this? A reputable news source, scholar, or someone close to the happenings? If not, I can only assume it is a rumor and that the ossuary was observed as broken only when it arrived at the ROM.

What tests? Are these tests stardard tests for the circumstances surrounding the James ossuary, or were they tests that would only be performed if the results of other normal tests were challenged? I have to defer to experts on this. Again, I would like more information before making a decision, otherwise it is an unsubstantiate rumor.

Oded Golan is an antiquities collector like Shlomo (mentioned earlier). They owned artifacts which at some point they decided needed to be analyzed by experts. I see no problem with the fact that he might have bought some significant finds. Shlomo, I believe, owns several significant ancient seals which relate to Biblical figures. Why is this a problem? Methinks this is all unwarranted rhetoric.

I only know of a handfull of people who have said this. I do not agree. Many have simply said that it was damaged in transit. I see no reason to disbelieve this.

This was not the only controversial part by any means, Michael. You know that. If the crack had gone right between the supposed "two halves" of the inscription, the same absurd cry would have gone out. If the crack had gone right through the yod/waw pair, the same thing. You are buying into serious propaganda and rhetoric in my opinion.

Much ado about nothing...

Think very hard about this, Michael. Please. Who are your sources?? I know at least one, and that one is quite egotistical and speaks rather overconfidently of things.

I am not very familiar with Naveh's work, though I am pretty sure he is a good expert. However, he may have liberal leanings. I do not know.

I am sorry, but I do not consider Dr. Altman much of an authority in ancient semitic paleography. She has already made serious mistakes. Authorities in ancient semitic paleography have questioned who she is...

I do know of Lemaire, Yardeni, Kitchen, Fitzmyer, Cross, and others who seem to support the authenticity of the script. Frank Moore Cross's writings are considered indispensible in the field of ancient semitic paleography and were even used (if I am remembering right) by Dr. Altman. According to the ROM website, Dr. Cross does not believe the inscription to be in two hands!

I don't doubt that forgeries occur, Michael. I think the Joash inscription may be a forgery. I also think that "Secret Mark" may be a forgery.

However, I do not believe the James ossuary to be a forgery (whether it actually refers to James, the brother of Jesus Christ, it another matter to me). Should conclusive evidence to the contrary present itself, I will eat humble pie and change my views.

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Haran
I completely disagree that it is one or the other. I'm sorry, but I sincerely doubt that Lemaire is a forger. His position is that of a scholar, analyzing artifacts that were presented to him.

That is no doubt why he is running around speaking to people to support it. Are any other academics who think it is authentic doing that? That is why I classed him as either dupe or participant. His role is quite common; many forgeries acquire strong defenders in the academic community.

By your criteria, here, Michael, she could easily be a forger. For that matter, any other excellent scholar who deals closely with ancient artifacts.I know you know better than this.

C'mon, Haran. You know there is no way what I stated could ever be twisted to do this.

the SBL meeting, he was simply presenting his point of view as he was requested to do. What other "audiences" have there been?

There's a thread here about one such speech.

re are most definitely many conspiracy theories floating around about the ossuary. The obvious theories are that Dr. Lemaire, Oded Golan, Hershel Shanks, and/or someone else has conspired to present a forgery to the world.

A "forgery" theory is not a conspiracy theory. Shanks was never on my list; lacks brains, education and talent. The obvious one is the oh-so-innocent Golan: "What? The patina is gone? My mother must have cleaned it" but who can tell?

These silly conspiracy theories crop up with every discovery. You earlier reminded me of another article in BAR that I read back in 1997 about the Temple Receipt inscription (which I noticed you said no more about).

What for? There isn't anything to say about it! I am still looking into the story.

Unfortunately, the similar things were said about it and probably the collector who owned it as have been said about the James ossuary and its owner.

Reaelly? You mean the collector of the Temple Reciept changed his story under police questioning, lied about the packaging (smearing the Company in question) and gave a lot of bogus nonsense: "What? The patina is gone? My mother must have cleaned it."..... "Hey MOM! After you are done with that Ossuary, would you do my ostracons? Yeah, that's right! That big pile in the corner! Make sure you don't chip any or blur the inscriptions!"

Fact is that, as many gullible Christians unquestioningly see the ossuary as that of James the brother of Jesus Christ, many "skeptics" are just as gullible in falling for false scholarship and conspiracy theories that dogmatically assert discoveries that support the Bible as a frauds!

Thanks. Got any names. 'Cuz offhand, I can't think of anybody....

Was there a list of scholars who were supposed to have seen it before it left? I believe that Ada Yardeni, Frank Moore Cross, and Dr. Fitzmyer saw it... I see no real problem though I would also like to hear Rahmani's views. Is he alive? Many people make the mistake of assuming certain scholars are still alive when they are not. I have no idea.

It is my understanding that Fitzmeyer never saw it in person. I thought Yardeni saw two hands. True?

At the packer's before being shipped? This is the first I have heard of it. Can you point me to something or someone who can substantiate this? A reputable news source, scholar, or someone close to the happenings? If not, I can only assume it is a rumor and that the ossuary was observed as broken only when it arrived at the ROM.

It came out on JM by Altman, as I recall. Golan changed his story again (imagine that). It turns out that the shipper shipped it already packed.

What tests? Are these tests stardard tests for the circumstances surrounding the James ossuary, or were they tests that would only be performed if the results of other normal tests were challenged? I have to defer to experts on this.

Yes. Lupia pointed this out on XTALK. Search the infamous "biovermiculation" thread. The battery of tests the thing was subjected to appeared to be positioned to give it the veneer of authenticity without actually subjecting it to the critical tests necessary to establish that. An important forger's goal. Remember this is the forgery of a lifetime, the kind that warms over the prison years with a pleasant glow, and earns lasting notoriety.

Oded Golan is an antiquities collector like Shlomo (mentioned earlier). They owned artifacts which at some point they decided needed to be analyzed by experts. I see no problem with the fact that he might have bought some significant finds. Shlomo, I believe, owns several significant ancient seals which relate to Biblical figures. Why is this a problem? Methinks this is all unwarranted rhetoric.

Shlomo is not associated with two dubious artifacts. Golan is. Shlomo doesn't change his story six times every hour, as far as I know.

This was not the only controversial part by any means, Michael. You know that. If the crack had gone right between the supposed "two halves" of the inscription, the same absurd cry would have gone out. If the crack had gone right through the yod/waw pair, the same thing. You are buying into serious propaganda and rhetoric in my opinion.

I don't have to buy into propaganda to locate a crack that goes through the controversial half of a controversial inscription. It could have gone anywhere on the box. On an inscription that covers -- what? -- 1% of the box -- the crack nevertheless makes it right through it. If this were a cosmology thread, you'd be screaming "Fine Tuning!"

I am not very familiar with Naveh's work, though I am pretty sure he is a good expert. However, he may have liberal leanings.

Good god! Liberal leanings! What next? He doesn't take the Bible literally? Say it ain't so!

I do know of Lemaire, Yardeni, Kitchen, Fitzmyer, Cross, and others who seem to support the authenticity of the script. Frank Moore Cross's writings are considered indispensible in the field of ancient semitic paleography and were even used (if I am remembering right) by Dr. Altman. According to the ROM website, Dr. Cross does not believe the inscription to be in two hands!

BTW, Lemaire and Yardeni are both holding out on the possibility of the Joash Inscription being authentic, according to this article by Shanks in the SBL newsletter:
http://www.sbl-site.org/Newsletter/02_2003/FebPDF2.pdf
Not that I wouldn't check the window if Shanks said it was raining outside. It also contains Silberman's article about the recent spate of strange finds.

I don't doubt that forgeries occur, Michael. I think the Joash inscription may be a forgery. I also think that "Secret Mark" may be a forgery.

Ditto for both.

However, I do not believe the James ossuary to be a forgery (whether it actually refers to James, the brother of Jesus Christ, it another matter to me). Should conclusive evidence to the contrary present itself, I will eat humble pie and change my views.

There will be no need to eat humble pie. I did all my crowing when the avalanche against it started. In any case, I could still be wrong, though I do not doubt my conclusion, as Gandalf once nicely put it.

I hope you realize that even if every script expert on earth authenticated it as being from one hand, and the script authentic, it still wouldn't mean it wasn't a forgery. That was exactly the case the forged Chingshan diaries, which held up for three decades until a non-professional exposed them. All along one person who knew the forger claimed that they were forgeries, and was discounted -- he couldn't read a word of Chinese. He knew his people, though.

Remember the Hitler Diaries? The handwriting experts all correctly nailed the Diary as authentic. Why do I say "correctly?" Because the experts were given handwriting samples of Hitler's...and some of those "samples" were actually forgeries by the same forger who did the diaries. It is sobering to think that lots of that stuff out there, dated and catalogued, is undoubtedly forged, and influencing expert opinions so that the experts are wrong even when they are right.

Further, the only thing that can authenticate it is going to be close analysis of patination, biovermiculation and other biochemical assays of the thing itself. Of course a forger should get the script right enough to fall within normal human range for that era....or close enough so that the conservative scholars can swallow their doubts.

Vorkosigan

Haran

I still don't see real, substantiated answers to what sounded like rumors to me...

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions on the ossuary.

I realize that script is not all there is to determining the authenticity of an object, but I believe there is enough evidence and expert weight for me to lean toward authenticity at this point.

As I've said many times, I look forward to seeing more peer-reviewed reports in the future. However, unfortunately, the polices of organizations like BASOR may keep that from happening...

By the way, if you're interested, one of the reasons that I believe the Joash inscription might be a fraud is because of the compressed text at the top near the break. The text then seems to level out around the middle. At the bottom right, the text begins to start higher on the right and drift slowly downward toward the middle, as if it were being written around the small break on the corner. Others have dismissed this, so I'm not sure what to make of it. Seems strange to me if the inscription were being written on an unbroken surface. There are also concerns that scholars have expressed about the variation in script throughout - I'm not quite as confident in this.

godfry n. glad

So.... Why two commissions?

Does anybody know?

godfry