Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: Altman's latest reply

Expand Messages
  • David C. Hindley
    This message has been slightly edited to indicate date and location of messages by others referred to in this message, and to clarify to whom the response was
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 31 5:46 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      This message has been slightly edited to indicate date and location of
      messages by others referred to in this message, and to clarify to whom the
      response was directed (i.e., Bob Schacht).

      -----Original Message-----
      From: risa3@... [mailto:risa3@...]
      Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1992 8:23 AM
      To: dhindley@...
      Subject: Re: FW: [XTalk] Altman's latest reply

      Bob needs a reply.

      >I don't see what her gripe is; at least half the messages have been
      >very much addressed to the evidence.

      No, they have been addressed to the side issue of the text of the
      second part. If the document is forged, then the content is irrelevant.
      It is a forgery; hence, arguing about whether that's an ayin or a dalet
      is a waste of everybody's time.

      >>1) It matters not one whit if the inscription be excised or
      >Gee, it seemed to matter a lot, just a few days ago. This sounds
      >like a strategic retreat.
      >>2) It matters not one whit if that be a dalet or an ayin.
      >Another strategic retreat?

      No, both are just fatigue at having to fight about something in which I
      have not the slightest interest other than as a piece of epigraphy.

      >>3) It does matter about the frame, but people do not
      >> understand the relevance, so fine, have it your way:
      >> ignore the frame.

      >I understand the relevance quite well. It does indeed matter IF
      >there was a frame. So can we go back to the evidence for or against
      >the frame?

      Dave, you [accidentally] posted my [Oct 30, 02] answer to John [Lupia's
      IOUDAIOS message to me dated Oct 20, 02], please ask John if you can
      re-post his entire [original post for] Bob out here. I see no reason
      to write up what has already been addressed. [John gave his permission
      and the post will be forwarded under seperate cover.]

      >>Simply put: If that entire inscription is genuine, people
      >>have to explain why:
      >>***Two different hands;
      >> Two different scripts;
      >> Two different levels of execution.
      >> And to this has now been added from other experts:
      >> Two different textures on the surrounding block.
      >>These differences are clear, self-evident, and obvious.
      >>The inscription as-is meets the criteria of a "blatant fraud."

      >My high school math teacher, when teaching mathematical proofs to
      >us, used to joke that when you get to the most difficult of the
      >proof, say in a loud voice "CLEARLY,..." and then race on to the
      >next part of the argument. Rather than counter the arguments that
      >have been made against her first three "two different...." points,
      >she just re-states them as if they were uncontestable facts, adds a
      >fourth point with no discussion of who the other "experts" are, or
      >the evidence for their arguments, and then slams the book shut with
      >two polemical statements.

      Battle fatigue; it is simply not worth it when the heart of the analysis
      has been put forth concisely and cogently.

      It is interesting, however, that a straightforward concise statement
      made in an attempt to get people to address the concrete visible evidence
      instead of irrelevancies is read as side-stepping.

      Oh, one of the experts asked for [this as well:] Dave, also ask John
      [Lupia] for permission to post here his comments [on the IOUDAIOS list] on
      the patina, etc. [to Shawn madden, dated Oct 29, and to Sam Wolf, dated
      Oct 30, edited versions of which will be forwarded separately, and FWIW
      John's XTalk post to Stephen Carlson is also relevant]. (I should also add
      that, in one of the (many) private notes I have received, after commenting
      on how clear the differences were after I mentioned the different scripts,
      an amateur noticed the discrepancy in the background material before
      John's post. The background differences are not clear enough in my
      photograph to comment on.)

      >I was under the impression that they had raised doubt that the
      >differences were either clear or obvious.

      If amateurs can see the differences they are not subtle. If, in a "poor"
      photograph of the inscription the differences leap out, they are not hard
      to detect. I other words, clear and obvious.

      >BTW, I agree somewhat with Bill A. that it probably doesn't make a
      >lot of difference whether or not the inscription is authentic.
      >It's not like someone found a photographs of Jesus before and after
      >the resurrection.


      Dr. R.I.S. Altman, co-coordinator, IOUDAIOS-L risa3@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.