Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 11-06-2002, 11:33 PM

Posted by Vorkosigan:

I think we should be WARY of the possibility of a
forgery but not all forgeries are equally "doable":

Of course...

2)the (notional) fogery of the inscription would be done 1900 years later than the epoch it purports to be from.

No, everyone is saying its an ancient fake, not a modern one.

3)any native-born German speaker who could get
ahold of stationery materials from the 1930s/early
1940s and who was a gifted imitator of handwriting
could, in principle, have pulled off the Hitler diary hoax. And it really was exposed, if I remember it correctly, after perhaps 2 or 3 years.

Not even that long. It was exposed when a historian took a look at the entry for July 20, 1944 and discovered that Hitler didn't mention the assassination attempt in his diary.

5)though the motives suggested are worth considering they cut both ways: an exposed forgery
would hurt the career of anyone involved/gulled
in the deception. That could also mean a LOSS of
income over the life of one's career.

Again, the forger lived 16 or 17 centuries ago. I didn't mean to imply that it is a modern fake, just that experts are frequently taken in and the fakes are exposed later. Lots of the "neolithic" art discovered in the 19th century has turned out to be fraudulent, for example, as more examples of real art have turned up. I was mostly noticing that the various fields seem to have a built in "suspicion reducer" that works something like "a scholar of XXX's stature would never forge/be fooled by a _________."

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr · 11-07-2002, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
From a criticism presented in the OP:

How can one say it is a "poorly executed fake"
without a background in such ancient inscriptions?
If it is SO obvious, how is it that Andre Lemaitre
was "fooled"?

Experts are quite easy to fool, when the information they have is tainted (as in the handwriting experts who "validated" the Hitler diary) or when they have some strong motivation that compels them to accept the forgery at face value (reputation, faith commitments, money), or when their expertise is overrated. Or.....

I just re-read Trevor-Roper's marvelous biography of Edmund Backhouse, the forger and con man.

Vorkosigan

Wasn't it Trevor-Roper who said the Hitler Diaries were authentic?

Vorkosigan · 11-07-2002, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:


Wasn't it Trevor-Roper who said the Hitler Diaries were authentic?

Trevor-Roper's report was in favor of authenticity, but he had his doubts. His exposure to them was controlled by the forger. See Robert Harris' Selling Hitler for the whole sad story.

Vorkosigan

Blinn · 11-07-2002, 06:02 AM

<a href="http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat= object&enDispWho=Article%5El1601&enZone=Views&enVe rsion=0&" target="_blank">Final report on the James ossuary</a>

Just came across this and haven't read it yet.

David Bowden · 11-07-2002, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
No, everyone is saying its an ancient fake, not a modern one.
....
Again, the forger lived 16 or 17 centuries ago. I didn't mean to imply that it is a modern fake, just that experts are frequently taken in and the fakes are exposed later.

I wonder. The use of the words "fake" and "forger" (I'm not trying to isolate Vork; several people, myself probably included, have used such language w/r/t this artifact) seems to imply that whoever finished the inscription on this box intended for people to come to the conclusion that this was Jesus Christ's brother's box, when the inscriber knew full well that it wasn't.

But why couldn't the finished inscription refer to one of the other admittedly existing "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" individuals, with the "faked" finishing touches merely having been added later for good measure by a relative seeking to clarify the relationships between his family members in a possibly crowded family bone-box collection?

I'm saying, okay, the inscription isn't by one hand. Does that automatically mean someone set out to deceive us with a pious forgery, or is it just one of those odd coincidences in history?

Is "forgery" the only reasonable conclusion?

Another reason I'm hesitant to impute something bad on the inscriber: this artifact was found in Palestine. Not Rome, or Latin Europe, or some desert abbey or Christian worship center. Apparently nobody back then thought it was necessarily of Christian importance, and it wasn't preserved as a relic.

That strikes me as being rather odd. One would expect a later pious forgery or "discovered" holy location to have shown up in Constantine's time or during the Crusades. Somebody should have known about it and kept taking care of it. That seems to imply that nobody was out there seeking fame or fortune after inscribing this box. And no Christian authority bothered to remember it, despite a white-hot market for apostolic artifacts.

I'd love to be referred to an argument for "early forgery" over "legitimate inscription, wrongly associated by Lemaire with the famous NT James". To me it seems the latter is still most likely.

I recreate the story like this: the box belonged to an anonymous (to us) James and was inscribed twice, the second inscription being innocent (if only semi-literate) clarification, perhaps even by the relative named Jesus. This box was never a Christian relic, faked or genuine, because it was never in the possession of Christians; indeed, Christianity had nothing to do with this James.

-David

PS - I'm still very hungry for information concerning the possibility that the inscription could be correctly read as if the box's Joseph and Jesus were brothers, Jesus being James' uncle, and not his brother.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]

Toto · 11-07-2002, 09:39 AM

Quote:

But Avni said that patina could be faked and that he has come across two skilled forgeries of inscriptions, intended to boost the value of ossuaries.

Blinn · 11-07-2002, 05:04 PM

If anyone is interested in comparing Altman's critique to the actual inscription, I found this image to be helpful:

I then looked up the Hebrew alphabet to match letter names with symbols. I can definitely see what she is saying about the ayins being completely different in the first and second parts.

Toto · 11-08-2002, 11:44 AM

<a href="http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=227760&contrassID=2&subContrass ID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y" target="_blank">another update</a>

Quote:

Oded Golan's acquaintances say that although archaeology is only a hobby, it's his whole world. "He's crazy about archaeology," says Robert Deutsch, an antiques dealer from Jaffa who is friendly with him. Indeed, all Golan's friends mention his tremendous knowledge of archaeology. At the press conference, Shanks said that the anonymous collector knows Aramaic.

"He has phenomenal knowledge in this field," Yaron Golan asserts. "He has sparks of genius. Archaeology is a sensitive and complex subject, very difficult. You don't always know how to identify things; you have to use your imagination. There are forgeries, there are all kinds of things. It's not like making omelets, and he is brilliantly talented in this field. I've always had the feeling that he could begin another career in archaeology."

Here, then, is already wide crack in the story. At the press conference in Washington, the anonymous collector was presented as someone with very limited understanding of archaeology. According to Shanks, the editor of BAR, the collector held onto the ossuary for 15 years without knowing the significance of the inscription carved on it.

. . .

Last week, an East Jerusalem dealer who comes from a well-known family of Bethlehem antique sellers said that the ossuary circulated among dealers a few months ago. A well-known Israeli collector said that a year ago, the ossuary was offered to him by a dealer from the center of the country. "I chose not to deal with it," he says. "Why get involved, who needs this headache?"

During the interrogation of Golan, the IAA investigators tried to find out when, exactly, the sarcophagus was purchased. Golan claimed that Shanks was mistaken. "I bought the sarcophagus 35 years ago, about the time of the Six-Day War," he told his interrogators. Golan was then just 16. "He knows the law better than I do," says Ganor. "The guy gave a version that is in accordance with the law. He said he has had it for 35 years, and now I have to prove that this is not the case."

Asked how he will prove it, Ganor said: "The photo of the ossuary has been distributed all over the world in the wake of the press conference. In the field of antiquities, everyone is at odds with everyone else. During a clever investigation, [the truth] will come out at some point. In our experience, it always does. I'm convinced that the person who sold it will show up suddenly, because he must be angry at him [Golan] and feeling that he pulled a fast one on him."
. . .

Toto · 11-08-2002, 06:20 PM

<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1036753315539&call_pag e=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=N ews/News" target="_blank">Owner to speak in Toronto</a>

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/08/israel.jesus.ap/" target="_blank">owner says he'll never sell relic</a>

David Bowden · 11-09-2002, 11:44 AM

I received this email from Bryan Cox of the Biblical Paleography forum on Yahoo, and thought perhaps his article might be of interest to those following this discussion. My apologies to Bryan for not checking my email and posting this earlier.

His article critiques Dr. Altman's findings in three areas:

1.) Whether the second half of the inscription is really executed so much more poorly than the first;

2.) Whether the second part of the inscription added by a less literate person; and

3.) Whether the matter of the "frame" around the original inscription bears serious consideration.

It also features a few wonderfully clear images of the ossuary's inscription itself.

Quote:

David,

Hi. I used to frequent Internet Infidels (from the Christian perspective). I still browse there occasionally and ran across some of your posts on the James ossuary.

I don't know if you've seen my response to Dr. Altman's allegations of forgery, but it might interest you.

Here's the link:
<a href="http://www.dreamwater.org/bccox/ossuary.html" target="_blank">http://www.dreamwater.org/bccox/ossuary.html</a>

It was originally posted on my new discussion forum, Biblical Paleography:
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Biblical-Paleography/" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Biblical-Paleography/</a>

Feel free to share this with the other internet
infidels if you think they'd be interested.

Thanks!
Bryan Cox
Owner/Moderator of Biblical Paleography

[dated Nov. 7]

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: David Bowden ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-06-2002, 11:33 PM	#21
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Posted by Vorkosigan: I think we should be WARY of the possibility of a forgery but not all forgeries are equally "doable": Of course... 2)the (notional) fogery of the inscription would be done 1900 years later than the epoch it purports to be from. No, everyone is saying its an ancient fake, not a modern one. 3)any native-born German speaker who could get ahold of stationery materials from the 1930s/early 1940s and who was a gifted imitator of handwriting could, in principle, have pulled off the Hitler diary hoax. And it really was exposed, if I remember it correctly, after perhaps 2 or 3 years. Not even that long. It was exposed when a historian took a look at the entry for July 20, 1944 and discovered that Hitler didn't mention the assassination attempt in his diary. 5)though the motives suggested are worth considering they cut both ways: an exposed forgery would hurt the career of anyone involved/gulled in the deception. That could also mean a LOSS of income over the life of one's career. Again, the forger lived 16 or 17 centuries ago. I didn't mean to imply that it is a modern fake, just that experts are frequently taken in and the fakes are exposed later. Lots of the "neolithic" art discovered in the 19th century has turned out to be fraudulent, for example, as more examples of real art have turned up. I was mostly noticing that the various fields seem to have a built in "suspicion reducer" that works something like "a scholar of XXX's stature would never forge/be fooled by a _________." Vorkosigan

11-07-2002, 06:02 AM	#24
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	<a href="http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat= object&enDispWho=Article%5El1601&enZone=Views&enVe rsion=0&" target="_blank">Final report on the James ossuary</a> Just came across this and haven't read it yet.

11-07-2002, 05:04 PM	#27
Blinn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,162	If anyone is interested in comparing Altman's critique to the actual inscription, I found this image to be helpful: I then looked up the Hebrew alphabet to match letter names with symbols. I can definitely see what she is saying about the ayins being completely different in the first and second parts.

11-08-2002, 06:20 PM	#29
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1036753315539&call_pag e=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=N ews/News" target="_blank">Owner to speak in Toronto</a> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/08/israel.jesus.ap/" target="_blank">owner says he'll never sell relic</a>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.