Ossuary a fake [Archive]

Loki

18th June 2003, 03:57 AM

Luci,

Try...reading...the...link

But the director of Israel's Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, called it a hoax.

"The ossuary is real. But the inscription is fake. What this means is that somebody took a real box and forged the writing on it, probably to give it a religious significance," Dorfman told Reuters after a news conference on the matter.

Gideon Avni, who chaired a committee made up of archeological experts investigating the ossuary, told reporters the conclusion was unanimous.
Commitee of Israeli archeological experts makes unanimous decision. Now, your evidence that it's real is????

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 04:06 AM

Yes, I understand that someone has called it a "fake", but relying on the word of someone in that position is what we skeptics call "appeal to authority". I'd just be interested in seeing some actual proof or, even, evidence. "Looks like", just isn't good enough for a skeptical analysis.

richardm

18th June 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes, I understand that someone has called it a "fake", but relying on the word of someone in that position is what we skeptics call "appeal to authority".

I believe that it's not a fallacy if the person you're appealing to is a real authority. If you were asking a team of crack Israeli archaeologists to comment on the relevance of the Bernouilli principle to aircraft lift, you would be committing the fallacy. But you're asking them about a particular relic from a period they happen to be experts in. So it's acceptable. Do correct me if I'm wrong.

Pyrrho

18th June 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by richardm
I believe that it's not a fallacy if the person you're appealing to is a real authority. If you were asking a team of crack Israeli archaeologists to comment on the relevance of the Bernouilli principle to aircraft lift, you would be committing the fallacy. But you're asking them about a particular relic from a period they happen to be experts in. So it's acceptable. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
You're absolutely correct.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

thaiboxerken

18th June 2003, 04:25 AM

LOL.

Luci tries to point out a fallacy! Now that's funny!

ShowMe

18th June 2003, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by richardm

I believe that it's not a fallacy if the person you're appealing to is a real authority.

100% correct.

A good example to an "appeal to authority" is my vegan friends telling me Einstein was a vegatarian.

They get upset when I tell them there's no need for me to refute the fact, since it's completely irrelevant.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 04:29 AM

thaiboxerken

18th June 2003, 04:33 AM

Luci comes up with the lamest attempts at wit or logic, does he?

Loki

18th June 2003, 04:52 AM

Luci,

Can I remind you ... your evidence that it's real is????

thaiboxerken

18th June 2003, 05:00 AM

Ha, why bother? Luci has decided it's real, so to Luci, it will forever be believed to be realy by Luci. The scientific evidence that the inscription is a forgery will not bother Luci.

richardm

18th June 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK.

Where is the evidence underpinning the claim of your authroity?

I don't know, I haven't looked. But when a noted expert announces the unanimous conclusion of a number of other noted experts, in a field where their expertise is undoubted, you are incorrect to dismiss it as an appeal to authority. In their opinion, the inscription is considerably younger than the rest of the box, done in a style which appears intended to ape an ancient style. I'm sure that over the next few days they will elaborate on why they believe that.

Skeptical Greg

18th June 2003, 05:54 AM

This baby went five pages when it first hit JREF..

Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus?.. Posted by Headscratcher4 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9112&perpage=40&highlight=ossuary&pagenumber=1)

I now suggest, it was the " Cold Fusion " of Christendom...:)

Akots

18th June 2003, 06:23 AM

Holdonaminute... Luci is a guy!?

Luciana

18th June 2003, 06:35 AM

There's no evidence for that, either, Akots. :)

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by richardm

I don't know, I haven't looked. But when a noted expert announces the unanimous conclusion of a number of other noted experts, in a field where their expertise is undoubted, you are incorrect to dismiss it as an appeal to authority. In their opinion, the inscription is considerably younger than the rest of the box, done in a style which appears intended to ape an ancient style. I'm sure that over the next few days they will elaborate on why they believe that.

OK, if your happy to take the word of authority, then fine, that's not a problem for me. As a skeptic, though, I'd like to see some actual evidence which underpins the claim that it "looks like" a fake.

richardm

18th June 2003, 07:02 AM

Upchurch

18th June 2003, 07:10 AM

I'm curious, Luci. As a skeptic, do you consider the inscription to be genuine or fake?

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by richardm

And quite rightly. At the same time, you can't simply dismiss their views out of hand.

I don't. I'd like to see evidence though.

arcticpenguin

18th June 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK, if your happy to take the word of authority, then fine, that's not a problem for me. As a skeptic, though, I'd like to see some actual evidence which underpins the claim that it "looks like" a fake.
Since you want to assert your viewpoint over that of the 'panel of experts', first we want to see your credentials that you have any expertise in any field that is relevant. Pony up.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm curious, Luci. As a skeptic, do you consider the inscription to be genuine or fake?

I consider evidence. I have not seen any yet, only claim, either way.

18th June 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Since you want to assert your viewpoint over that of the 'panel of experts', first we want to see your credentials that you have any expertise in any field that is relevant. Pony up.

Luci is our resident creduloid, it believes anything. It has also never claimed exprtise in any field that I am aware of. It also has "an award winning laboratory" that does something or other.

pgwenthold

18th June 2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

I consider evidence. I have not seen any yet, only claim, either way.

It really doesn't matter, because you do not have the expertise needed to evaluate the evidence.

I could give you all the results of the chemistry experiments that we do in our lab but it wouldn't do you any good if you aren't an expert in physical organic chemistry. That's why you rely on expert opinions. Because they know what they are looking at.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Ed

It also has "an award winning laboratory" that does something or other.

You are a liar. Where in hell is that quote from, your ass?

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by pgwenthold

It really doesn't matter, because you do not have the expertise needed to evaluate the evidence.

I could give you all the results of the chemistry experiments that we do in our lab but it wouldn't do you any good if you aren't an expert in physical organic chemistry. That's why you rely on expert opinions. Because they know what they are looking at.

How can you be sure these "authorities" are not guilty of self-delusion or even manipulation? Are you sure these things haven't occured in mainstream science? If you're happy to rely on authority as being the 'Gospel' for your faith, then like I said, that's not a problem for me. I like to see evidence.

davefoc

18th June 2003, 07:59 AM

Thanks for the post Ian, that was a story I had followed.

Lucianarchy, appears to have made reasonable posts here and taking shots at her (him?) seems kind of bogus.

She'd like to see a report. I'd like to see a report. I don't know who this group of scholars is. I'd like to see the kind of tests that were run. They said the characters cut through the ancient patina. OK, did the letters have a patina too, perhaps providing some indication of the age of the forgery.

The last time I heard about the ossuary it was in Canada, did any of the experts there have an opinion?

pgwenthold

18th June 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

How can you be sure these "authorities" are not guilty of self-delusion or even manipulation? Are you sure these things haven't occured in mainstream science? If you're happy to rely on authority as being the 'Gospel' for your faith,

I have to rely on authorities in matters like these because I don't know enough about ancient artifacts to be able to evaluate the evidence even if I had it all. You don't either.

And no, authorities (no quotes needed because they are) are not above self-delusion or manipulation. And if this was the opinion of just one or two experts, and if there were opposing opinions from other experts, I would be less impressed. However, it was a unanomous conclusion of a panel of experts. Are they all deluded?

Skeptical Greg

18th June 2003, 08:07 AM

Darat

18th June 2003, 08:07 AM

It appears that some "sceptic"'s comprehension skills have let them down.

Ian does not say, in his text, that it is a fake, he says "it seems" - a very sceptical phrasing.

He uses a well known journalistic technique to create an attention grabbing headline and then provides an expansion.

(Edited for mispelling scetpics!)

18th June 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You are a liar. Where in hell is that quote from, your ass?

Now, now. Remember that I was here when you started posting. Perhaps Claus can elucidate.

You are a nilist, I do not see how you come to any beliefs. You float in a sea of credulity.

Skeptical Greg

18th June 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm curious, Luci. As a skeptic, do you consider the inscription to be genuine or fake?

Upchurch, I'm surprised that you need to ask..

There is no doubt that it is a genuine inscription ....

Ian Osborne

18th June 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Darat
Ian does not say, in his text, that it is a fake, he says "it seems" - a very sceptical phrasing.

Thanks for picking up on that. The reason I said it *seems* to be a fake is because I doubt the testing is over. I haven't seent he evidence either, and I probably wouldn't understand it if I had, but I'm sure in the fullness of time the examination will be peer-reviewed. Only then will we be able to say with any degree of certainty whether it was a fake, but let's face it. It's highly unlikely that a panel of experts will have their unanimous conclusions overturned.

This one's not quite dead yet, but it's on its deathbed with very little chance of recovery...

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Now, now. Remember that I was here when you started posting. Perhaps Claus can elucidate.

You are a nilist, I do not see how you come to any beliefs. You float in a sea of credulity.

You are a liar. You 'quoted' me as saying something which I have certainly not said, you provide the evidence, liar.

Go and get Claus to search his OCD archives, I can tell you that claim does not exist, and I can tell you that you are a liar. You are a lair.

TLN

18th June 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You are a liar. You 'quoted' me as saying something which I have certainly not said, you provide the evidence, liar.

Why would he bother considering you don't stand up to your direct quotes either? You just run and hide from them.

Luci, don't hold others to standards you won't meet yourself, like skepticism.

kittynh

18th June 2003, 09:53 AM

Well, I would say that if I was evaluating this "box" I'd put Thomas Hoving on it. Or some other art expert. Mr.Hoving is famous for his book on famous fakes. He's relentless in his quest of finding fakes that are on display. He's even exposed fakes that have hurt the reputation of the MET when he was in charge. The funny thing is that he's even proved supposed fakes as being real! The guy has spent a lifetime developing the skills and knowing which tests to make to expose a fake. He will be the first to tell you, an archeologist isn't the best person to know a fake from what's real. I would also say he uses a team, and draws on his vast contacts with every sort of expert to expose a fake. The fact is that if a museum is going to pay millions for a piece of art, they had better have a trained staff to tell fake from real. But, because they aren't the traditional "experts" they are rarely called in. One of the true tests of something like this ossuary is if some museum of repute is willing to pay a large sum of money for it. I'm willing to bet most of them wouldn't touch it except for perhaps a short display (it would bring in a lot of people). Mr. Hoving's book "False Impressions" reads a lot like one of Mr.Randi's books, showing how the need to believe overcomes common sense. IT's a really good book.

c0rbin

18th June 2003, 09:57 AM

Just like old times, eh, Lucky?

Bluegill

18th June 2003, 10:17 AM

The March issue of Skeptical Inquirer had a very interesting article (http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-03/bonebox.html) on the ossuary.

I have not reread the article yet, but I think I recall that the inscription was suspect because:

The cuts into the stone could have been faked in such a way that the "patina" on the stone still held up under scrutiny

The cuts in the stone looks a bit too unworn for their alleged age.

The position of the inscription was very unusual--not on what would normally be the outward-facing side of the box

The history of how the box changed hands from collector to collector, and the lack of good documentation, is the sort of thing that sets off alarm bells for art and artifact collectors.

...Now I'll have to reread the article to see if I remembered right.

Checkmite

18th June 2003, 10:25 AM

Please, allow me.

Closely examine the following photo of the Ossuary inscription:

http://www.godandscience.org/images/jam_inscr_close.jpg

The text is alleged to say "Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua (Jesus)".

You can nearly divide this inscription in half; it is very obvious that the second half of the inscription was carved by a different hand than the first. Note the even, acute, and properly proportion Aramaic letters in the first half of the inscription, the original one - this person was quite literate, and may have even used a graph of sorts to help keep the text in line, much like a block-letter sign designer would today.

Compare this with the wide, clumsy, and uneven letters in the second half of the inscription. To see the most dramatic difference, compare the letter at the very beginning of the first half (it looks sort of like an oblong "y") with the letter at the very end of the second half of the inscription. It's supposed to be the same letter - but it's painfully obvious that the two letters were most definitely not written by the same person.

Secondly, though the original section of the inscription is written in Aramaic, the second half is not - or if it is, it's very crude and would actually say "my brother", not "brother of" or "his brother", and Joshua's name would be horribly misspelled.

The Ossuary did belong to a Jacob, son of Joseph. The text which would read "brother of Joshua" was clearly added later, and most likely by somebody who was not fluent in Aramaic!

kookbreaker

18th June 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Secondly, though the original section of the inscription is written in Aramaic, the second half is not - or if it is, it's very crude and would actually say "my brother", not "brother of" or "his brother", and Joshua's name would be horribly misspelled.

The tip off is the phrase underneath the inscription that reads "These people called Romans, they go to the house!"

Nyarlathotep

18th June 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK, if your happy to take the word of authority, then fine, that's not a problem for me. As a skeptic, though, I'd like to see some actual evidence which underpins the claim that it "looks like" a fake.

The problem with your logic is that since no one can be an expert on EVERYTHING, people have to take experts at their word all the time. I know nothing about cars. If my mechanic tells me I need a particular repair, I have no choice but to take him at his word because he is an expert on cars and I am not. Beyond the obvious I wouldn't even begin to know how to tell if he was correct or not. I assume this is the same for anyone who is not familiar with cars.

Likewise with these archeologuists. I am not an archeologist. I know little about the process of how to tell a fake first century carving from a real one. Therefore if I wanted to know whether this ossuary's inscription was real or phony, I would have to take the word of actual archeologists. Even if by some freak happenstance I could look at it myself, I wouldn't begin to know what to look for. Any good information I would have about it would have to come from 'authorities'

I guess my point is that not every incidence of taking an authority at his word would be considered an 'appeal to authority' otherwise people would be commiting this fallacy everytime they voice any opinion on any subject that they themselves are not considered an authority themselves. I don't think you or anyone else would argue that this is the case

Skeptical Greg

18th June 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Please, allow me.

Closely examine the following photo of the Ossuary inscription:

http://www.godandscience.org/images/jam_inscr_close.jpg

The text is alleged to say "Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Joshua (Jesus)".

.....but it's painfully obvious that the two letters were most definitely not written by the same person. .........

Or at least not on the same side of ' happy hour '..........:D

Checkmite

18th June 2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Or at least not on the same side of ' happy hour '..........:D

:D

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 12:06 PM

" However, the head curator of an exhibition of the ossuary at Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum earlier this year disagrees with the committee's report. "At the moment our position [based on] our own examination suggests the inscription and box are authentic, Dr. Ed Keall told globeandmail.com.

The officials in Israel reached their conclusions after intensive exams by several committees of experts, the authority said.

But tests done at the ROM in Toronto in early January led Dr. Keall and his team to different conclusions.

"My position is that a team of us felt we were looking at something that was genuine," he said.

The technicians in Toronto looked at how the box was preserved on all sides, they examined the inscriptions under strong powers of magnification and they examined a crack in one side that they found to be deeply pitted.

(The ossuary developed cracks en route to Toronto from Israel. The cracks extended through the latter parts of the inscription).

Dr. Keall said in his opinion, the inscription itself looked to have been cleaned, accounting for the removal of the patina. He said he was convinced there were enough varieties in the level and depth of the inscription that would be impossible for a forger to reproduce.

As well, the ROM team did tests on the bottom of the ossuary where it was damp, and found a high phosphate level, which would suggest that bones decomposed there, he said. "Little things like that [led to the belief] that it's real.""
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030618.wossu0618_2/BNStory/National/

wert

18th June 2003, 12:15 PM

However, the head curator of an exhibition of the ossuary at Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum earlier this year disagrees with the committee's report. "At the moment our position [based on] our own examination suggests the inscription and box are authentic, Dr. Ed Keall told globeandmail.com.Of course the curator of the exhibit wouldn't have any kind of vested interest in the exhibit being "real" now would he? :rolleyes:

18th June 2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

How do you know the inscription's fake?

Why didn't you read the link and respond to it.

Why did you just start shouting a demand for somebody to do your homework for you, instead?

18th June 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes, I understand that someone has called it a "fake", but relying on the word of someone in that position is what we skeptics call "appeal to authority". I'd just be interested in seeing some actual proof or, even, evidence. "Looks like", just isn't good enough for a skeptical analysis.

Luci, you aren't a skeptic, and you aren't correctly citing the fallacy of appeal to authority, either.

Deception really doesn't suit you.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by wert
Of course the curator of the exhibit wouldn't have any kind of vested interest in the exhibit being "real" now would he? :rolleyes:

Not any more than the "authority" who declared it "looks like a fake" would have a vested interested in it being a 'fake'. At least Dr Keall had some tests done. What, short of opinion, have the "authority" provided?

TLN

18th June 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by jj
Luci, you aren't a skeptic, and you aren't correctly citing the fallacy of appeal to authority, either.

Deception really doesn't suit you.

Unfortunately, it's all he knows how to do. The presentation of evidence is beyond him. No, he's no skeptic, he just says so to anger everyone here.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by jj

Why didn't you read the link and respond to it.

Why did you just start shouting a demand for somebody to do your homework for you, instead?

The fact that you interpret a simple, polite and reasonable questions, as "shouting" and "demanding", demonstrates the same sort of hysteria displayed by other pseudo-skeptics and trolss (TLN, Xouper, etc,.). As you will see, there is evidently a strong case that the "authority" opinion is incorrect.

18th June 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK, if your happy to take the word of authority, then fine, that's not a problem for me. As a skeptic, though, I'd like to see some actual evidence which underpins the claim that it "looks like" a fake.

Luci, prove you're a skeptic. Skeptics know what a false appeal to authority is, you don't. Skeptics know that the duty of the claimant here is to prove the positive, not disprove the negative, you don't.

So, Luci, stop calling yourself a skeptic.

18th June 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The fact that you interpret a simple, polite and reasonable questions, as "shouting" and "demanding", demonstrates the same sort of hysteria displayed by other pseudo-skeptics and trolss (TLN, Xouper, etc,.). As you will see, there is evidently a strong case that the "authority" opinion is incorrect.

Please provide concrete evidence, taking into account your further misbehavior and lapses in veracity that have been demonstrated in this thread, how my description was in any fashion inaccurate.

If you can provide no evidence, admit you have failed to do so and retire without making further defamatory accusations.

TLN

18th June 2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The fact that you interpret a simple, polite and reasonable questions, as "shouting" and "demanding", demonstrates the same sort of hysteria displayed by other pseudo-skeptics and trolss (TLN, Xouper, etc,.).

There's been no shouting, just a refusal by you to produce any evidence on your many, many claims.

Luci, skeptics don't run from questions designed to examine their claims. You're no skeptic.

If you'd like to be one, let me know and we can proceed with an actual conversation on your claims. Or, you can just keep playing your cowardly games of hit and run designed to inflame posters here.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by jj

Please provide concrete evidence, taking into account your further misbehavior and lapses in veracity that have been demonstrated in this thread, how my description was in any fashion inaccurate.

If you can provide no evidence, admit you have failed to do so and retire without making further defamatory accusations.

Calling you "hysterical" for calling my simple, polite question as "demanding" and "shouting" is not defamatory, it is evidently a verifiable fact, since a simple question is not "demanding", nor simple text on a forum "shouting". All you have done here is make personal attacks, which also makes you a hysterical pseudo-skeptic.

There is evidence presented by Dr Kreall that the artifact is genuine. If you don't have the ability to refute that evidence in a rational skeptical manner, then fine, that's not a problem for me.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by TLN

There's been no shouting [...]

Did you see that jj, even your fellow Hysterical knew that, or was the "shouting" you keep experiencing getting in the way of your reality again?

Brown

18th June 2003, 01:08 PM

A couple of points:

First, some religious artifacts are worth a lot of money. Unfortunately, a good number of them are counterfeit. (There are some who will say that they are ALL fakes.) There is considerable monetary incentive for creating a bogus religious artifact, and because of the history of fraud surrounding them, they should be presumed to be fakes.

Second, when the artifact was first described in the media, I heard a voice in my head, the voice of the late actor Robert Shaw. In the movie "The Deep," Shaw explains a very basic concept to Jackie Bissett and Nick Nolte, who think they've found some treasure. "There's a lot of counterfeit out there," he says. "It's real gold, it's real gems, but it's FALSE." He then tells them the importance of establishing an origin for their find: "You've got to establish a provenance: proof that it's real."

Shaw could almost have been describing the ossuary. There's a lot of counterfeit religious artifacts out there. Some of them have genuine materials and may be quite old (like the ossuary), but still may be fakes all the same. Something that just appears out of nowhere, without proof of origin, cannot be taken at face value.

Skeptical Greg

18th June 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

There is evidence presented by Dr Kreall that the artifact is genuine. If you don't have the ability to refute that evidence in a rational skeptical manner, then fine, that's not a problem for me.

You seemed to have missed the original post in this thread...

Burial Box Not from Jesus Brother, Experts Say (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20030618/sc_nm/religion_israel_jesus_dc)

But the director of Israel's Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, called it a hoax.
Dr. Gideon Avni, the archaeologist who chaired a committee of archaeological experts investigating the find's provenance since March, told reporters the conclusion was unanimous.
...the stone of the box was more typical of Cyprus and northern Syria than ancient Israel. ...

Official Report on the James Ossuary( Rochelle Altman) (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm)

" Dr. Rochelle Altman is a specialist in ancient phonetic-based writing systems. Her publications include _Psalms from the Paris Psalter: Psalm 22(23)_, 1993; _The Diplomatic E-Edition of Beowulf_ (MS emulation -- 4 editions) 1994; and _DIPLOMAT_: Computer Application for creating diplomatic editions, 1995. She is also co-coordinator of the IOUDAIOS-L discussion list.--JRD"

TLN

18th June 2003, 01:17 PM

Put up (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21047) or shut up Luci. All you're saying right now is "Evidence? I don't wanna!"

Don't think you're fooling anyone.

18th June 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You are a liar. You 'quoted' me as saying something which I have certainly not said, you provide the evidence, liar.

Go and get Claus to search his OCD archives, I can tell you that claim does not exist, and I can tell you that you are a liar. You are a lair.

You know very well the threads were deleted. Let me ask, then, what about the "research" you were conducting?

If any newcomers doubt the creduloid nature of this organism, check out the logic on this thread
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9587

Khalid01

18th June 2003, 01:46 PM

Isn't all of Luci's evidence the box itself? All one has to do is look at the box, and use logic to determine when the inscription was made. Since this committee is quite knowledgeable of aramaic over the ages, they should easily be able to determine, logically, when the inscription was made. What does Luci want? A modern chisle encrusted with patina? A hand-written confession of the forgery? I hope Luci never serves juryduty, she'd put the jury in deadlock indefintely. :rolleyes:

Bunk

18th June 2003, 01:55 PM

I say we chuck the ossuary on the pile with all the other religious "artifacts" that have been faked and sold to the gullible and then have a nice big bon fire. We could all sing coom-bye-ya and sway together. I'll bring marshmallows.

Edited for spelling

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Ed

You know very well the threads were deleted.

Like I said, where did you get your quote from then, your ass?

You have faith that Claus has archives, so go on, test your faith and ask him.

I have never made the claim you attributed to me.

You, are a liar. Plain and simple.

Anyone can check my posting history here. You are confirming the hypothesis which was censored by the moderators here; this forum is corrupted by pseudo-skeptics like your-self.

TLN

18th June 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I have never made the claim you attributed to me.

I have tons of direct quotes which are your claims, Luci. Why won't you discuss them?

Here's where you insult me an run; very "skeptical" of you.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 02:06 PM

So no one can debunk the evidence of Dr Kreall.

Darat

18th June 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
It seems the ossuary believed to be that of James, brother of Jesus, is a fake (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20030618/sc_nm/religion_israel_jesus_dc). well, the ossuary's real, but the inscription isn't...

De_Bunk

18th June 2003, 02:18 PM

Lucianarchy...

So then...What am i ...???

I am not a skeptic...

A "Skeptic" will question...

A "Skeptic" will debate and enquire...

Im different...I know...

I know 100%, that the paranormal dont exist...

Since the beginning of mankind...every time the paranormal has tried to be proven....under sensible, common sense condtions...its failed...100% of the time...

FACT

How many more centuries does mankind have to put up with this total bullsh*t...

Well... that Bullsh*t...ended with me...and im just out to convince the rest of the world..( and im not going to be all "Politically Correct" about it either...)

I tell it how it really is...from the lowest level of intelligence...

The day that "Dolphins" are able to communicate with us, fully...they will just laugh their asses off about the notion of the "Paranormal" and " God "....

"Planet of the Apes" is looking more likely, by the day...

DB

18th June 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
The day that "Dolphins" are able to communicate with us, fully...they will just laugh their asses off about the notion of the "Paranormal" and " God "....

DB

Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllll................... ..........:D

18th June 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Like I said, where did you get your quote from then, your ass?

You have faith that Claus has archives, so go on, test your faith and ask him.

I have never made the claim you attributed to me.

You, are a liar. Plain and simple.

Anyone can check my posting history here. You are confirming the hypothesis which was censored by the moderators here; this forum is corrupted by pseudo-skeptics like your-self.

I read it, I saw it. So did Claus.

Prove you did not. Refute my contention.

18th June 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Khalid01
she'd put the jury in deadlock indefintely. :rolleyes:

We don't know it's sex, it is unproven, ergo we call it "it".:D

Phaycops

18th June 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Dr. Keall said in his opinion, the inscription itself looked to have been cleaned, accounting for the removal of the patina. He said he was convinced there were enough varieties in the level and depth of the inscription that would be impossible for a forger to reproduce.

Am I the only one who heard my BS-alarm go off here. We all know that "impossible to fake" has been shown time and again to be a crappy reason for something to be real. I mean, people make some good fakes these days. This one, IMHO, isn't even a good fake!

As well, the ROM team did tests on the bottom of the ossuary where it was damp, and found a high phosphate level, which would suggest that bones decomposed there, he said. "Little things like that [led to the belief] that it's real.""
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030618.wossu0618_2/BNStory/National/ [/B]

So what? Nobody was questioning the fact that it was a real ossuary, were they? Why were these tests done? It seems as though they're trying to confuse the issue. The issue is NOT "is this a real ossuary," but "is this inscription what it purports to be?'' That is, does this inscription say what it really says, was it all carved at the same time, and was it carved at the time of death of the person inside the ossuary?

Just my two pennies....

Pyrrho

18th June 2003, 03:12 PM

Even if the inscription is genuine, what evidence is there of any connection to Jesus? Joshua was a common name in those days.

True Christians do not need relics.

18th June 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Did you see that jj, even your fellow Hysterical knew that, or was the "shouting" you keep experiencing getting in the way of your reality again?

Hey, got some authority to back up your medical diagnosis of hysteria there?

Until you produce evidence, you're shouting, screaming, and now you're whining and defaming.

It's time for you to retire for good. Go away.

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Ed

I read it, I saw it. So did Claus.

You are a liar. Either that, or you are very, seriously, delusional. You claim Claus backs up your lie, which means you are lying about Claus too.

Ayone can check my history here. I have not made a claim for anything which I have not provided a rational basis for. You, otoh, have a history of calling people "faggots", abusing your power as a moderator, losing your moderator status, and are a proven liar, as in this case right now.

18th June 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You are a liar. Either that, or you are very, seriously, delusional. You claim Claus backs up your lie, which means you are lying about Claus too.

Ayone can check my history here. I have not made a claim for anything which I have not provided a rational basis for. You, otoh, have a history of calling people "faggots", abusing your power as a moderator, losing your moderator status, and are a proven liar, as in this case right now.

Evasion, blustering noted. You can't prove it can you? What about the results of your "private experiment" ever finish it?

Edit to add: Never made a claim? Do you remember your silly probability calculation that you insisted was correct that had us all in stiches?

Where have I lied? Gentlehorse said something like that once and I called him on it and he never responded. I expect the same from you.

So I lost my moderator status did I? Care to be more explicit? What exactly do you mean?

Lucianarchy

18th June 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by jj

Hey, got some authority to back up your medical diagnosis of hysteria there?

Actually, yes, I have.

Until you produce evidence, you're shouting, screaming, and now you're whining and defaming.

It's time for you to retire for good.

Don't feel so bad about yourself, your child hood was in your past. It is time for you to move on.

I can assure you, telepathy / psi / survival exists. Whether you deal with it now is your choice, but your denial in dealing with this is leading you to become dis-eased with your true self, which is resulting in the psychological projectile vomiting you are experiencing now.

TLN

18th June 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I can assure you, telepathy / psi / survival exists.

Bunk.

Put up or shut up.

Since you have no intention of doing the former, please just do the latter.

18th June 2003, 04:15 PM

And if I called you a faggot, by your twisted reasoning, it is up to you to prove that you are not. We sceptics do not accept experts only something else which is unclear (by your logic) so...good luck.

Phaycops

18th June 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Even if the inscription is genuine, what evidence is there of any connection to Jesus? Joshua was a common name in those days.

True Christians do not need relics.

In order to attempt to keep the discussion about the topic at hand :rolleyes: ....

Pyrrho, I do believe the original excitement was about some guy doing a probablity calculation; he decided that the likliehood of Joseph, Jesus and Jacob all being in the same inscription, based on available records, was too small to be coincidence. I'll see if I can't find an article from when the story broke, but I think it may be mentioned in the SI article, as well.....

[later...]
Here's what I found. A National Post story (Toronto, Canada) dated Nov 20, 2002, by Joseph Brean, had this to say in part:

...
On Friday, Mr. Golan will announce results of a study by Camil Fuchs, director of Tel Aviv University's Department of Statistics, who searched historical records for information about ossuary use in first-century Jerusalem. He analyzed literacy rates (only literate families inscribed ossuaries), life expectancy, birth rates, family size and the prevalence of the names Jesus, Joseph and James among people whose families could afford ossuaries. He restricted his study to the Jewish population because the practice of exhuming bodies after burial to reinter the bones in carved boxes was exclusive to Jews. He also restricted his study to people older than 16 because the box was too large for a child's bones.

"He took all these elements into account and then he made a very complicated computation to find how many people died in Jerusalem between the years 10 BC and 70 AD," Mr. Golan said yesterday.

This time frame marks the outer limit of when the box could have been made, according to historians who study burial practices. Other reliable sources have dated the ossuary to between AD 50 and AD 70. James is known to have been martyred in AD 62.

Dr. Fuchs's calculations show that, by the most conservative analysis, at most 2.6 people filled all the necessary criteria in the 80-year window. His results will likely strengthen scholarly confidence in the artifact's authenticity.

I got this article off of Lexis-Nexis (hurrah for still being technically a student!).

The SI article is really good, and discusses the patina and cleaning issues. If the inscription were "carelessly" cleaned, how very fortunate. Yet again, I hear my BS detectors going off. Seems to me that the matter is nearly settled.

18th June 2003, 04:45 PM

Yes, by all means let us rise from the muck and mire.

There was an article in the Jan/Feb 2003 issue of Archeology magazine about this thing. The aspect that struck me was the sorta shady past of the object. The guy that owns it was an ardent amature since he was a kid but couldn't remember where he bought it and profesed not to know that there was any significance to the inscription. He paid around $200 for it and it was insured for $2,000,000 when it came here. I guess a lot of artifacts have dubious pasts but.......

Also, there is a pretty good photo of the inscription. In this photo the latter half of the inscription looks much sharper than the former part. I think that I'd tend to trust the opinion of someone who has seen more than one of these things (like me)

18th June 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by jj

Hey, got some authority to back up your medical diagnosis of hysteria there?

Oh please. Some pseudoskeptics on here can cry 'deluded!' and 'psychotic!' and 'insane' and 'unsane', etc., and they aren't making a medical diagnosis, and they don't need authority to back them up?

LOL

-Who

18th June 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Actually, yes, I have.

And you commonly announce your diagnoses to the world?

Really?

Please show us all some evidence that you have a license to practice some kind of diagnostic medicine in this area. Remember, it is your claim we're discussing here.

Don't feel so bad about yourself, your child hood was in your past. It is time for you to move on.

You're not Sigmund, and he didn't do science, either.

I can assure you, telepathy / psi / survival exists.

No, you can't.

You can claim it. Given your known inability to support the BS that you routinely spew, I don't think that you can "assure" me of anything without third-party assistance.

So don't try to tell me what I think or what you can "assure" me of, you're a miserable failure there. I hope that wasn't your "psi" acting up.

Whether you deal with it now is your choice, but your denial in dealing with this is leading you to become dis-eased with your true self, which is resulting in the psychological projectile vomiting you are experiencing now.

You are an interestingly hypocritical individual, I'll say that. First, you claim, quite ridiculously, that others who grow disgusted with your fairy tales and say so show some kind of mental infirmity, admit by their disgust that they can't refute your words, and so on, and then you start to use terms like "psychological projectile vomiting". You're the only one here without evidence, child, and you are the one making the claims.

I am starting to think that you are one of those people who assumes that all other people share the same fears and weaknesses that you do, and that you aim your attacks in the direction that you, yourself, might fear most.

You, child, are not a skeptic. Do not call yourself one.

18th June 2003, 06:21 PM

There is also a board (titilum?) kicking around that supposedly has the INRI inscription on it and was supposed to come from the true cross. Anyone remember anything about this? I recall that it is in a church in Italy.

Edit. Here is a reference.

http://hesemann.watchers.ca/cross3.html

Interesting

spelled "titulus"

Checkmite

18th June 2003, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
" However, the head curator of an exhibition of the ossuary at Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum earlier this year disagrees with the committee's report. "At the moment our position [based on] our own examination suggests the inscription and box are authentic, Dr. Ed Keall told globeandmail.com.

The officials in Israel reached their conclusions after intensive exams by several committees of experts, the authority said.

But tests done at the ROM in Toronto in early January led Dr. Keall and his team to different conclusions.

"My position is that a team of us felt we were looking at something that was genuine," he said.

The technicians in Toronto looked at how the box was preserved on all sides, they examined the inscriptions under strong powers of magnification and they examined a crack in one side that they found to be deeply pitted.

(The ossuary developed cracks en route to Toronto from Israel. The cracks extended through the latter parts of the inscription).

Dr. Keall said in his opinion, the inscription itself looked to have been cleaned, accounting for the removal of the patina. He said he was convinced there were enough varieties in the level and depth of the inscription that would be impossible for a forger to reproduce.

As well, the ROM team did tests on the bottom of the ossuary where it was damp, and found a high phosphate level, which would suggest that bones decomposed there, he said. "Little things like that [led to the belief] that it's real.""
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030618.wossu0618_2/BNStory/National/

Dr. Keall's tests would have established two things: firstly, that the ossuary was, in fact, a real ossuary; and secondly, that the inscription seems to be rather old.

The first thing - that is, that the ossuary is a real ossuary, was never in question. It was the ossuary of one Jacob, son of Joseph.

The second bit of "evidence" is rather nebulous. It fails to address the problem that the inscription seems to have been made by two seperate people. When Keall says "the inscription shows signs of extreme age", does he mean the entire thing? Nobody contests that the FIRST half of the inscription is old. And establishing the age of the inscription - even the latter, questionable half of it - does nothing to address the obvious fact that whomever carved the "brother of Jesus" segment was illiterate as far as Aramaic is concerned. Keall's "evidence" shows nothing, save that the forged section of the inscription wasn't carved yesterday. I'm sorry, but there it is.

Thumper

18th June 2003, 07:01 PM

Odd, I don't recall Jesus, Joseph, et al. being literate.

Can anyone explain why we think they were?

18th June 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Thumper
Odd, I don't recall Jesus, Joseph, et al. being literate.

Can anyone explain why we think they were?

Miracle?

a_unique_person

18th June 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Ed
There is also a board (titilum?) kicking around that supposedly has the INRI inscription on it and was supposed to come from the true cross. Anyone remember anything about this? I recall that it is in a church in Italy.

Edit. Here is a reference.

http://hesemann.watchers.ca/cross3.html

Interesting

spelled "titulus"

From my almost non existent knowledge of latin, titulus, singular, titulum, plural.

The Central Scrutinizer

18th June 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"Looks like", just isn't good enough for a skeptical analysis.

As a skeptic, though, I'd like to see some actual evidence which underpins the claim that it "looks like" a fake.

Irony meter. Toast. :mad:

Checkmite

18th June 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Thumper
Odd, I don't recall Jesus, Joseph, et al. being literate.

Can anyone explain why we think they were?

There's no reason why they wouldn't be. At this period in history, before the Middle Age, and in the Roman Empire (of which Judea was a part), reading and writing were not skills strictly limited to privileged classes.

spoonhandler

18th June 2003, 07:52 PM

I think the information provided by Joshua Korosi and the link Diogenes included to Rochelle Altman's report make it clear the object is a genuine ossuary, the ownership of which is identified by the first part of the inscription. Experts agree the second part of the inscription is inconsistent in many ways and the lack of a frame also indicates forgery or at least tampering with the original inscription. The additional "Brother of Joshua" is superfluous, and completely at odds with customs of the time the box was made.

Ian Osborne

19th June 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by spoonhandler
The additional "Brother of Joshua" is superfluous, and completely at odds with customs of the time the box was made.

That's one of the reasons given for it being unlikely that the ossuary inscription was real but referred to someone else. The brother wouldn't have been there unless he was someone spectacularly special. Guess that must mean it really is James the Lord's Brother's ossuary or a forgery, and the unanimous opinion of a team of scholars is that it's a forgery. Until someone with equal or greater expertise comes up with solid evidence to the contrary, that's good enoough for me.

Tricky

19th June 2003, 05:29 AM

This Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11070-2003Jun18.html) tells how the fake was done:
Dahari said in a telephone interview from his Jerusalem office that microscopic and chemical analyses showed that a forger had cut through two layers of ancient varnish and patina to write the inscription, then had covered the letters with a recently applied mixture of water and ground chalk.
...
Dahari said the chemical analysis, however, was conclusive, with the chalk-and-water patina clearly used to give the inscription a false impression of great age.

Of course, the "it's real" crowd has it's supporters too. The head of the Biblical Archaeological Review worries that it might hurt business and book sales

In an interview yesterday, Hershel Shanks, editor and publisher of the Review and co-author of a recent book on the ossuary, said, "I am not convinced at all" that the inscription is fake.
...
Shanks also suggested "archaeological politics" may have played a role in the investigation, noting that the Authority's leadership is known for its opposition to the antiquities trade.

And of course, another ardent supporter of the ossuary's authenticity is the owner.

Dahari last year identified the owner of the ossuary as Tel Aviv collector Oded Golan. Golan told the Associated Press yesterday that "I am certain the committee is wrong regarding its conclusions" about the ossuary.
Interesting that the only people who seem to believe the inscription is authentic are those who have either financial or religious reasons for wishing it to be so.

Skeptical Greg

19th June 2003, 06:00 AM

In an interview yesterday, Hershel Shanks, editor and publisher of the Review and co-author of a recent book on the ossuary, said, "I am not convinced at all" that the inscription is fake.

A ' BOOK ' on the ossuary?

Jebus crispies! How could you possibly garner more than a short story out of the thing...

nemo

19th June 2003, 06:15 AM

It can't be fake. This new translation of the inscription proves it:

Here lie the bones of Jesus' Brother
Yes it's him, can be no other
From every hilltop shout and hollar
Only cost 200 dollar

;)

davefoc

19th June 2003, 07:45 AM

A lot of interesting links referenced in this thread. Thanks to the various posters.

The bottom of Tricky's Washington Post link had this:
Dahari said the chemical analysis, however, was conclusive, with the chalk-and-water patina clearly used to give the inscription a false impression of great age. Dahari said "there is some doubt" about whether the word Yeshua (Jesus) is a forgery, "but the rest for sure is fake," and Yeshua "was a very common name."

It was interesting to note that the only part of the inscription that they weren't sure was a fake, was the very thing that other experts were sure was a fake because it didn't match the writing on the left.

I also enjoyed Ed's link about the titulus crucis. I tried to find a more secular review of the artifact, but couldn't. Heseman doesn't seem to believe in carbon 14 dating because in his view it got the wrong date for the shroud of Turin. That sort of thinking makes me very suspicious of any Heseman analysis.

Bunk

19th June 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Thumper
Odd, I don't recall Jesus, Joseph, et al. being literate.

Can anyone explain why we think they were?

From The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ (http://www.godsjoy.com/lostbooks/infancy1.htm):

"48. There was, moreover, at Jerusalem, a certain man named Zacchaeus, who taught boys. He said to Joseph: Why, O Joseph, dost thou not bring Jesus to the to learn his letters? Joseph agreed to do so, and reported the matter to the Lady Mary. They therefore took Him to the master; and he, as soon as he saw Him, wrote out the alphabet for Him, and told Him to say Aleph. And when He had said Aleph, the master ordered Him to pronounce Beth. And the Lord Jesus said to him: Tell me first the meaning of the letter Aleph, and then I shall pronounce Beth. And when the master threatened to flog Him, the Lord Jesus explained to him the meanings of the letters Aleph and Beth; also which figures of the letter were straight, which crooked, which drawn round into a spiral, which marked with points, which without them, why one letter went before another; and many other things He began to recount and to elucidate which the master himself had never either heard or read in any book. The Lord Jesus, moreover, said to the master: Listen, and I shall say them to thee. And He began clearly and distinctly to repeat Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, on to Tau. And the master was astonished, and said: I think that this boy was born before Noah. And turning to Joseph, be said: Thou hast brought to me to be taught a boy more learned than all the masters. To the Lady Mary also be said: This son of thine has no need of instruction.

49. Thereafter they took Him to another and a more learned master, who, when be saw Him, said: Say Aleph. And when He had said Aleph, the master ordered him to pronounce Beth. And the Lord Jesus answered him, and said: First tell me the meaning of the letter Aleph, and then I shall pronounce Beth. And when the master hereupon raised his hand and flogged Him, immediately his hand dried up, and he died. Then said Joseph, to the Lady Mary: From this time we shall not let him go out of the house, since every one who opposes him is struck dead."

See also The Forgotten Books of Eden (http://www.godsjoy.com/lostbooks/other_books.html)

Brown

19th June 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Thumper
Odd, I don't recall Jesus, Joseph, et al. being literate.

Can anyone explain why we think they were? Well, there are some who point out that Jesus "wrote in the sand," (this is reported in John, I think) although the author of the Gospel neglected to report the words that he wrote. Jesus also was fond of saying "it is written," which might suggest he could read. It is also possible that he tried to memorize scripture that others read to him, and memory may have been a bit faulty because he misquoted scripture from time to time.

ceo_esq

19th June 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Thumper
Odd, I don't recall Jesus, Joseph, et al. being literate.

Can anyone explain why we think they were?

Here's why some people think Jesus was literate:

http://www.tektonics.org/illit.html

Skeptical Greg

19th June 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Here's why some people think Jesus was literate:

http://www.tektonics.org/illit.html

If the Bible says so, it must be true...

ceo_esq

19th June 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

If the Bible says so, it must be true...
Well, I think the question was really whether the Bible portrayed Jesus as literate or illiterate. Thumper raised it by saying "I don't recall Jesus being literate"; I presume he (?) meant that he didn't recall the Gospels having reported Jesus as being literate.

Skeptical Greg

19th June 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by ceo_esq

Well, I think the question was really whether the Bible portrayed Jesus as literate or illiterate. Thumper raised it by saying "I don't recall Jesus being literate"; I presume he (?) meant that he didn't recall the Gospels having reported Jesus as being literate.

I wasn't really trying to debate the issue... Sorry...:)

davefoc

19th June 2003, 08:57 AM

davefoc said:
It was interesting to note that the only part of the inscription that they weren't sure was a fake, was the very thing that other experts were sure was a fake because it didn't match the writing on the left.

Hmm, my screwup. I forgot about the right to left thing. The brother of Yeshua (Jesus) expression is on the left which is the part of the inscription deemed to be the more likely to be genuine by all the experts.

Checkmite

19th June 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
davefoc said:

Hmm, my screwup. I forgot about the right to left thing. The brother of Yeshua (Jesus) expression is on the left which is the part of the inscription deemed to be the more likely to be genuine by all the experts.

Tricky's article is news to me. The source I'd read seemed to be of the opinion that it was the first half of the inscription (yes you're right, that's the right half of the inscription by the way) was the genuine half, while the last half (on the left) was fake. Of course, the source I used was a linguist, whose objections were based on things like spelling and grammar. If detailed chemical analysis indicates that the reverse is true, then that must be the way it is.

renata

24th July 2003, 11:30 AM

Update: Dealer arrested

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/07/24/jesus.brother.ap/index.html
Police have arrested an Israeli antiquities dealer suspected of creating two forgeries that shook the religious and archaeological world, including a burial box purported to be that of Jesus's brother James.

.....

In court, police unveiled forgery equipment they said was found in Golan's home, including stencils, stones and partially completed forgeries. The dealer was being detained by police.

Golan last year told a French collector about the two disputed artifacts, which raised questions from the start. After exhaustive studies, the Israel Antiquities Authority declared that they were forgeries last month.

The burial box, or ossuary, bore the inscription, "James, the brother of Jesus," leading to speculation that it referred to the brother of Jesus of Nazareth.

.....
.

calladus

29th July 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

OK, if your happy to take the word of authority, then fine, that's not a problem for me. As a skeptic, though, I'd like to see some actual evidence which underpins the claim that it "looks like" a fake.

Luci,

It occurs to me that unless you are an expert on archaeology, you would not have the skill to interpret the evidence presented by the experts, and therefore could deny said evidence.

Without being an authority on a subject, you are forced to rely on the general consensus of the current authorities, preferably when the evidence given succeeds a peer-review.

calladus

29th July 2003, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

How can you be sure these "authorities" are not guilty of self-delusion or even manipulation?

Because of peer review. Science is self-correcting, unlike belief.

calladus

29th July 2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
Thanks for the post Ian, that was a story I had followed.

Lucianarchy, appears to have made reasonable posts here and taking shots at her (him?) seems kind of bogus.

She'd like to see a report. I'd like to see a report. I don't know who this group of scholars is. I'd like to see the kind of tests that were run. They said the characters cut through the ancient patina. OK, did the letters have a patina too, perhaps providing some indication of the age of the forgery.

The last time I heard about the ossuary it was in Canada, did any of the experts there have an opinion?

I agree, there should be a report in some journal that discusses this.

A little web searching turned up the Archaeology journal (http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=online/features/ossuary/index) article on this. There are probably other journals more scientific than this, but you may have to get to them through a subscription service (like Lexus / Nexus)

So far, from what I've read the camp of serious Archaeologists say it is fake, those people who have something to lose say it is real.

calladus

29th July 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Even if the inscription is genuine, what evidence is there of any connection to Jesus? Joshua was a common name in those days.

Common these days too.

On the factory floor of the company I work for I once saw a toolbox with the name JESUS on it. I first thought the guy was just religious, until I later found out that was his name.

Some day is someone going to dig up that toolbox and declare it a religious artifact? After all, Jesus was a machinist - uh, I mean carpenter!

AP's sock puppet

25th November 2003, 06:06 PM

If Jesus was Jewish, why did he have a mexican name?

Corey

26th November 2003, 08:27 AM

I'm just pondering the concept of refuting a claim because it's "only an opinion" and we're just taking their word for it because they're "experts"....by citing an opinion by another expert. True skepticism has won out. Don't listen to these phony "experts" claims and "opinions"...they're clearly wrong, because this other expert gave a contrary opinion, and he CAN'T be disproven. Case closed.

Thanfully Luci is here to show us TRUE skepticism....and predict carbombings. I mean attempting carbombings. I mean the location of the attempting carbombing. I mean the name of a place near the attempted carbombing.