Re: [XTalk] James ossuary determined "fake"- Frank Moore Cross concurs
- As a follow-up, I am heartened to see that Frank Moore Cross, Jack's
touchstone on this issue, has revised his opinion. Remarkably, that
revised opinion matches the suspicions I've maintained since the BAR
ran the original article by Lemaire.
See the BAR "breaking news" page at
http://bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingHSALFMC.html , where, in
correspondence with Hershel Shanks dated June 26, Cross states,
"You seem to be confused about my statement, "The same team of
Israeli geologists declared both the Ossuary inscription and the
Jehoash inscription authentic according to their tests of the patina
on each. My perverse conclusion was that both were forgeries and I
could no longer 'sit on the fence' in the matter of the ossuary
inscription." I said nothing about "the conclusion of the 'Israeli
geologists' that both inscriptions are forgeries"to quote your
letter. I referred to the original team of three who declared both
were authentic. My logic seems clear to me. If the Jehoash
inscription was a forgery and they declared it genuine, then their
declaration that the ossuary inscription was genuine was suspect. The
team was either incompetent or even in collusion with the forger. In
any case there ceased to be credible scientific support of the
authenticity of the ossuary inscription."
The "team", being the first three geologists at GSI to pass on the
ossuary, were "either incompetent or even in collusion with the
Yep... That's what I suspected as well.
--- In email@example.com, "beefnboots" <wellingk@o...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...>
> > I do not believe the IGS geologists were morons. I do not
> the ROM
> > analysts were blind. I do not believe a forger would use "chalk
> > Have you not noticed that the only qualified palaeographers and
> > lean for authenticity and those issuing opinions on the
> palaeography and
> > Aramaic syntax are not even competent in 1st century Aramaic
> dialects? This
> > artifact needs to be placed in the hands of a group of
> > qualified scientists whose first analysis will be to determine
> > "chalk soup" was applied...probably AFTER the box left the ROM.
> > Jack
> Well, Jack, if we are to believe the reports on the Jehoash Tablet,
> I'm not too sure that the IGS geologists weren't morons. Vetting a
> piece of Cypriot metamorphic rock as Palestinian sandstone is a
> and egregious mistake for a geologist and strikes me as moronic. I
> fully expect heads to roll at IGS over the IAA findings, where,
> incidently, a more senior geologist from IGS agreed with the IAA
> Then, what's the IGS doing passing on the authenticity of an
> antiquity when there's a more appropriate and more expert group of
> specialists readily available? Why didn't it go to the IAA before
> was rushed out of Israel?
> I read the report as published in the BAR article, I challenged
> factual aspects of it and I got a partial retraction from one of
> the "geologists" that penned it. I note that that revision has
> seen publication.
> Y'know, Jack... I agree with you that something stinks, but it
> at IAA, it's at IGS.
> Lastly, your attitude, as expressed in this post is less than
> professional. You claim to be a scientist...What kind? And, what
> Kelly Wellington
> Portland, Oregon
- --- Michael Turton wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Jack. Just a coupleHey, hey, hey - don't bring me into it. I wrote one, maybe two,
> of clarifications. Initially I had no "animus," the
> Ossuary was an interesting fake for me until you,
> Grondin and others on several forums began posting
> gleeful posts using it to bash non-mainstream views.
> Then I got motivated to follow it closely. So I'd like
> to thank you and Mike for that; I learned quite a bit
> and met some very interesting people along the way.
notes to XTalk when the thing was first announced and that was it. I
haven't been following it with any avidity, don't care much about
the end-result one way or the other, didn't even go to the Toronto
presentation - though I was at the annual meeting. I do find the
political interaction of the scientists fascinating, as well the
public exposure of shoddy and hasty scientific "examinations".
Mostly, though, I'm interested in the historical Jacob and the setup
of the Jerusalem church, which is why I questioned you about your
reasons for believing that Jacob wasn't the brother of Jesus. If
it's just because of the Epistle of James not sounding at all like
what a brother would write - well, that baffles me, too, if the
letter is authentic. But Paul called him "the brother of the Lord",
and Paul doesn't strike me as somebody who would've repeated a claim
that would enhance the status of anyone above him in the hierarchy
if he had any question about the truth of that claim. To say nothing
of the possible embarassment for Matt and Luke of having to admit
siblings for a virgin's child?
Mt. Clemens, MI