BAR finally responds to Ossuary debacle

[Cinorjer]

Those of you who followed the amazing trip of the James Ossuary through the publicity hype machine might have wondered when BAR (the magazine that championed the whole thing under the leadership of the Editor Hershel Shanks) was going to respond to both the IAA's findings that it was definitely a forgery, and the arrest of the box's owner, Golan, for forging this and other artifacts.

Well, I just checked the Biblical Archeology Review (http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.html) website, and they finally posted their response. It's an amazing piece of prevarication. Their response seems to be (1) that they weren't the only ones who claimed this was authentic, that (2) nobody should believe the Israel Antiquities Authority until independent scientists replicated their results, anyway, and (3) the owner, Golen, hasn't actually been convicted yet of forging artifacts, only arrested and charged.

They then go on to whine about the IAA not talking to their reporters anymore. Completely absent in their article is any mention of the fact that their editor, Heshel Shanks, has a huge financial stake in the box because of a book deal trumpeting it's authenticy, or that Golan was caught with a workshop in his house designed to make fake inscriptions, including templates of ancient Hebrew writing taken from textbooks and bags of dirt from archaeological sites and the equipment to mix fake patinas.

The Ossuary was front page news when Hanks lead the publicity machine to tout this as "The most important discovery in Christianity." The people who pointed out that it showed every sign of being a fake were accused of being anti-Christian and having an agenda. (sigh) I wonder how many true believers are willing to admit they were suckered?
Jerry

[c4ts]

Uh, none, as usual.

[DrChinese]

I like to read BAR. But Shanks is pretty quick to french fry others over perceived insults, minor bad behavior, etc. For example, he lambasted some people in a recent issue about the pros and cons of selling antiquities.

So I guess he should apply the same standards to himself that he applies to others. He boosted the ossuary, now he should come clean about it. If he doesn't, how can you ever take him seriously in the future?

There is really no shame in being taken in anyway. It was well done as a forgery, and anyone might assume that a forgery would ultimately be discovered as such anyway. So why bother to fake it? The process of science is designed to weed out early biased results and bring us to a consensus position. Nothing wrong with a little excitement in an area.

But if Hershel can't bring himself to call it like it is, then he is no better than those he has criticised through the years. Remember too that he roasted the length of time it took to get the Dead Sea Scrolls out for independent review. (Of course that was ridiculous.) You can't have it both ways!

[jimmygun]

It is strange (sarcasm) that the amount of hoopla given in the media about the bone box did not show up when the box was shown to be a fake.:rolleyes: