Israel Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) ForgersHershel Shanks: Trial Reaching Climax? Talkback Add Your Comment
The indictment lists 124 witnesses. So far, the prosecution has called only about 70, but has indicated that it will rest after a few more witnesses. That will trigger a critical point in the trial. The remaining defendants will almost certainly file a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the government has failed to make even a prima facie case; if the judge agrees, there would be no need for the defendants to put on their case. The one to watch is defendant Robert Deutsch. The 27-page indictment charges five defendants, in various combinations, with either forgery or conspiring to sell artifacts they knew to be forgeries. Among the defendants is Robert Deutsch, one of Israel’s leading antiquities dealers. Other defendants included a former chief conservator at the Israel Museum, Rafi Braun (or Brown); antiquities dealer Shlomo (“Momi”) Cohen; a Palestinian worker named Faiz El-Amlah; and antiquities collector Oded Golan. Two defendants (Braun and Cohen) have been dismissed; the charges were simply dropped. The government induced a third defendant (El-Amlah) to plead guilty to a minor charge that had nothing to do with forgery; in exchange for leniency; he received a fine. So he, too, is out of the case. That leaves two defendants left in the case—Robert Deutsch and Oded Golan. Deutsch may be the more interesting. A Romanian immigrant to Israel, Deutsch is a successful antiquities dealer with shops in some of the most exclusive hotels and areas of Tel Aviv. But Deutsch is—or, at least before this case, was—also a respected scholar. He has written a bundle of books on seals and inscriptions, some with highly regarded Haifa University professor Michael Heltzer and another with internationally renowned Sorbonne scholar André Lemaire. Deutsch himself taught at Haifa University—at least he did before this case. He is also an archaeologist. He served as an area supervisor in the excavation of Megiddo—before this case. In short, this case has been devastating for Deutsch. In many ways, it has destroyed his life. According to observers of the trial, in three years the government has really produced no evidence against Deutsch. Or has it? We may soon know. The government is said to be two or three weeks away from concluding its case. When that happens, it will be time for motions to dismiss the indictment. The government will then file its opposition to the motions to dismiss. Then we will have a better idea of the case, if any, against Deutsch. If the indictment against him is dismissed, only defendant Oded Golan will be left. The case against Golan is different. He is charged with actually forging something—the famous ossuary, or bone box, inscribed, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The government claims it found in his apartment forgery instruments and materials to make forgeries, as well as some partially completed forgeries. On the other hand, some very prominent paleographers, including André Lemaire and the highly regarded Israeli paleographer Ada Yardeni, are convinced that the James ossuary is authentic. No expert paleographer has testified otherwise. Normally, the testimony of Lemaire and Yardeni would come as part of the defendants’ case. But, for some strange reason, the government called them as its witnesses. Their testimony that the inscription is authentic would in itself seem sufficient to raise a "reasonable doubt" concerning the government’s allegation that the inscription is a forgery, thus requiring dismissal of the charge. Experts who have insights into the trial or the alleged forgeries are invited to submit their comments to BAR’s website. This case has been called “the forgery trial of the century.” Why has it taken so long to try? Why is the government failing to call so many of the witnesses listed in the indictment? Are the items charged as forgeries in the indictment authentic or not? What, if anything, lies behind this case; why was it brought? Did Horace have this case in mind two thousand years ago when he wrote: “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus”—Mountains are in labor, a ridiculous mouse is born?—H.S.
james ossuaryI have followed the "Bone Box Debate" semi-closely since inception; the point that struck me from the start (and one that I have yet to see voiced) is that the ossuary is a forgery, just not a modern one. The Catholic church has a history of (and deeply entrenched love for) relics. There are enough pieces of the "true cross" to build the Ark missing (or not, depending on your love of photos of shadows)from Mt. Ararat (or some other mountain) and enough pickled, dried, and preserved pieces of various Saints to reassemble them as multi-limbed Hindu gods. Almost from the start of Christianity, it's adherents have had no qualms about lying to prove the truth of their beliefs. Why is it so difficult to envision this as manufactured to impress the impressionable and further the "cause" ? It seems to me that in the case currently in court the question of "is it a forgery" is immaterial: the only questions that they should be considering are : "Is this a 'modern' forgery?" and " Are the accused the forgers ? " Any doubts to either, and the case dissolves. • • • • • • • Certainty is detrimental to the quest for truthClaiming certainty about something is the fastest way to stop the quest for truth. Being certain that the James ossuary is a forgery, at this stage and with all the questions that are still in the air, is ridiculous and suspicious. Why not allow scientific examination by independent experts? Why not discuss this issue on the ground of reason, of facts, of scholarship? The case has been made against the ossuary by attacking Golan. That Golan may or may not be a forger does not mean automatically that any artifact that is connected to him or was acquired by him, in this case the ossuary, is automatically considered a forgery without further examination. I do not know if the inscription is authentic in its entirety. I do not claim to know either way. But I remain open to the possibility of it being authentic or forged, and based on the evidence I will make my mind. It is my perception that a desire to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of some powerful sectors has resulted in the IAA acting in a way that compromises their credibility and weakens the same case they are trying to make. • • • • • • • James OssuaryTo the lay person the argument of whether the inscription on James ossuary is a forgery is mute. As a Christian I must say I am surprised the IAA declared the James Ossuary a forgery. With the amount of controversy surrounding the ossuary and the people the IAA selected to analyze and test the ossuary, it makes me think that another reason applies. Could it be that it was a religious rather than a scientific decision? I would hate to think so but, stranger things have happen in Israel, politically no party can form a government without a coalition of parties. The forgery argument is weak but if the ossuary is authentic does it mean that the bones of James the brother of the Christ were in it. As I understand it the names James, Joseph and Jesus were common back then. As a Christian it has no bearing on my faith that Christ was the Messiah promised by God the father It's an academic argument Mr. Shanks, its has no impact on faith. Armchair Archaeologist Charles Shaw Bucks Co. PA • • • • • • • James OssuaryAs a stone mason for 20 years, there is a scenario I believe that has not been discussed. If the words on the ossuary were written at two different times, it only reasons that the first carving was very early, likely 1st Century. The "Jesus" part would have been carved recently, and therefore the stone material would have been dried and more brittle. This would have caused a more deteriorated and jagged edge on the letters. I do not recall noticing such on the pictures. • • • • • • • James OssuaryI love the magazine BAR and all the discussions by the many experts and others. I have been facinated for more then 60 years now at how the experts can disagree on the smallest of items or ideas. It looks like the IAA does not want to appear as tho they are dismissing the artifact too quickly and offend Christians. But Christians also do not want this ossuary to be authentic because it flies in the face of Jesus having resurrected and flown off to heaven. In the end it may be just simply that he was a human man with a wife ,father, brothers and sisters. and buried in an ossuary like others of the time. Since nothing has survived in writen form of the exact day,year of the actual event of the death of Jesus other then much later writings by his followers, then how will anyone know the truth.Nuch was destroyed by the early church trying to promote their own view of these events. I am finding all of this to be good humor. • • • • • • • James' OssuaryIs anyone surprised that Israel, through the IAA would spend so much time, money and effort to discredit ANY possible physical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ? To admit that Christ existed and performed the miracles He performed and preached the message He preached would mean that Judaism was hung on the cross. For some other unknown reason, this is the same organization that has turned a blind eye to the blatant destruction of artifacts and archaeological evidence at the Temple Mount. My conclusion is that the ossuary is not a forgery. They have an ulterior motive and would even risk allowing evidentiary proof of David's existence to be destroyed to further that motive. We try so hard to find evidence of our Faith. The primary definition of faith is believing in something in the absence of proof. I do not need this ossuary to believe in God or Jesus. I do not need the Da Vinci Code to misconstrue a painting of an event a thousand years after the said event as proof of some kind of conspiracy. For all of the scientific communities attempt to disprove God, they have done an awesome job of proving His existence. • • • • • • • James Ossuary".....Normally, the testimony of Lemaire and Yardeni would come as part of the defendants' case. But, for some strange reason, the government called them as its witnesses. Their testimony that the inscription is authentic would in itself seem sufficient to raise a "reasonable doubt" concerning the government's allegation that the inscription is a forgery, thus requiring dismissal of the charge...." The only reason I can see the government calling them as witnesses, is because if the government decides not to call them to the stand, then the Defense cannot question them with regards to their opinion that the box is authentic. In other words, the government is simply trying to keep their opinion out of the courtroom altogether and this is the only way they can do it. How much do you want to bet that these two are never called to testify? • • • • • • • James ossuaryThe names are so common, that it is unlikely that it has anything to do with St.James. The problem is that, as I understand, this antiquities dealer has so many incredible treasures disbelief is more than justified. It is like lightning striking 25x in one place. • • • • • • • If quoting Hebrew...If quoting Hebrew, perhaps it could be helpful to translate in the next update the entire decision of the Jerusalem district court regarding defendant 2's appeal to dismiss the indictment against him. It is drastically different from the insights presented here, to put it mildly. • • • • • • • N. Burleigh's BookMs. Burleigh, I hope that through BAR we, the readers, will be able to acquire a signed copy of your book once it's available. I'm very interested in reading the story and trial of the James Ossuary and it'll be awesome to get it all in "one read." tks • • • • • • • To Jim re: The James OssuaryJim, the inscription is in Aramaic, and apparently Aramaic that is characteristic of the period in question (see, e.g., http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Cook_remarks.htm). That's one of the reasons that some paleographers (like Lemaire) support its authenticity. What you write about the commonality of the names is obviously correct. However, what is quite rare about the inscription is that it specifically mentions who the buried James' brother is (i.e., Jesus). What is also rare is that the inscription is written along the long side (rather than the short side) of the box, which may mean that this ossuary was meant to be more visible than most. This may mean that the James therein was a prominent figure, perhaps a martyr, to whose bones many would want to pay respect. Those argue that the ossuary held the bones of James the brother Jesus of Nazareth tend to to base this belief on the small likelihood of such a string of coincidences (use of the long side of the ossuary, citation of brother's name, and others) occurring if the box held anyone else's bones. I'm not sure that this argument is compelling, but I think that this is a fair summary of how they would state it. • • • • • • • Monitoring Alleged Forger's Case of Ossuary of JamesI've bought 1 copy of BAR back issue Nov-Dec 2002 Which entitled "An Ossuary of James Brother of Jesus" I interesting the said artifacts because I have been searching for an authentication of the Aramaic language spoken by Jesus(Eeshu) at the time. And this is my prima facie evidence to convince my audience concerning the originality of the new testament spoken and the Apostles. But sad to analyze that said artifacts is not yet final for authentic/original, because Israel Government file a forgery case to a artifacts dealer. I do hope that this may resolved as soon possible to erase the doubts of the skiptic and me too. I followed the FINAL BAR issue declaring by the Israel Government that the ARTIFACTS of Ossuary of Jame Brother of Jesus is AUTHENTIC. • • • • • • • The Real Names of the Prophet, His Wife and SonsJudas, Mary, James, Simon. • • • • • • • The Real Names of the ProphetGeoff Hudson wrote on 2/28/08: "Do some of the garbled texts of the NT and the garbled writings attributed to Josephus give us clues as to the real names of the prophet, his father, his wife and his sons? I believe they do. I'm just a rodeo clown, and I don't know who they are. Could you please name them? Thank you. • • • • • • • "the forgery trial of the century"Periodically I have googled Trial of the Century, to get an update. Today I got one. I do not know why it has taken so long to find out if that pomegrant or ossurary is real or not. I know the Isreali Government has a lot to do but I would like to kn ow if they are real. Thankyou • • • • • • • The James Inscription is Irrelevant?A distinct possibility is that the supposed Jesus of Nazareth (who supposedly came out of Galilee, as supposedly, did the other saviour of the world Vespasian) never existed. The name Jesus, meaning saviour, could be the Pauline invention of Flavian editors creating the new Jesus cult using original prophetic documents that made no mention of Jesus whatsoever. Then the James of the NT, the supposed bishop of Jerusalem, could never have been that brother of Jesus of Nazareth, nor was it likely that he was the son of any Joseph. One is then left with a number of questions. Who was the real Jewish prophet of the NT? Was the real prophet's name suppressed and his image besmirched by Flavian historians? Do some of the garbled texts of the NT and the garbled writings attributed to Josephus give us clues as to the real names of the prophet, his father, his wife and his sons? I believe they do. • • • • • • • Shanks Responds to BurleighSorry, for your searches, the second name is spelt Altman, not Altmann. • • • • • • • Shanks Responds to BurleighThe plot thickens. So does Rochelle Altmann have to appear in court in person, or can she merely submit written testimony without a formal face-to-face cross-examination by the prosecutor? I have been trying to find real evidence of Rochelle Altmann's existence for years. If Hershel Shanks is correct, the prosecutor already knows the evidence of one Rochelle Altmann is unreliable, and the court is a farce that wants the case to fail. At the moment, I have no other course but to think that Rochelle Altmann is a pseudonym, and that 'her' publications are published under that pseudonym. I would very much like to know the truth. Books and publications that are not peer reviewed are no evidence of the existence of Rochelle Altmann. Can anyone testify to having seen Rochelle Altmann, face-to-face, in the flesh? If not, I have a pretty good idea who purports to be Rochelle Altmann. • • • • • • • The James ossuaryForgive both my ignorance and my lack of information on this subject, but are the three names (James, Joseph and Jesus) written on the box in Hebrew ior Aramaic? I know that Jacob is the Hebrew for James, and that Jesus is the Greek for Joshua. Both being quite common names. It would seem to me that if they were written in Aramaic, the box might well be authentic - just not an ossuary of the James everyone assumes. If they were written in any other language, I would strongly feel it was a forgery. • • • • • • • forgery trialThis is a subject that I am following with some interest. Please continue to update us!! • • • • • • • James OssuaryMy readings on various articles and public statements, both academic and otherwise, having to do with the James Ossuary and the Family of Joseph tomb lead me to believe that the official Israeli archaeological institution is too easily shadowed in the case of controversial issues that touch on Christian (read Vatican, especially) doctrine by political pressures and political expediencies to be absolutely objective. It is much easier to cast doubt and, in essence, wash one's hands of instances where some more upfront, less clouded academic statement would offend or otherwise place Israel in the hot seat. I do sympathize given the fact that Israel needs all of the friends it can get on the political scene. But one would hope that more objective scholarship would have easier access to such difficulty cases as the ones I have mentioned above. • • • • • • • Forgery Conference Report + TrialIs the "Forgery Conference Report" a part of the Trial Record at this point? [It is not.-Ed.] • • • • • • • James OssuaryActually the perpetual virginity of Mary has been questioned in recent years by Catholic scholars. One is the Rev. John Meier in his book A Marginal Jew. As far as I know, Fr. Meier is a priest in good standing. As to the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, there are a good many disagreement between them and it is now generally recognized that neither of them is straitforward history as we would think of that literary form. There is no question that the Gospels speak of brothers and sisters of Jesus. But part from all that, there is the consideration that the names on the ossuary are common enough and could well be found in another family. • • • • • • • Intense InterestFirst I want to commend Hershel Shanks for sharing his ambivalent feelings about the Yehoash inscription. Second, he wrote that "the IAA intensely dislikes collectors". I've heard this said before, but have not yet heard any logical suggestions to explain it. The IAA has a tremendous amount of genuine material in their storehouses, so it can't be out of jealousy. I'm not 100% sure, but don't they receive fees from licensed antiquities dealers, &/or indirect funds from the government that collects sales/export taxes? Furthermore, collectors occasionally promote the historical value/relevance of Israel's antiquities, which would seem to be good PR for Israel's government (including the IAA). So I'm really baffled as to why they would "intensely dislike" us (I being one of them). Sure would be nice if someone from the IAA would issue a formal statement on this particular issue, & follow it up with what they plan to do to improve the situation. How long would the IAA's employees have jobs if the world were to suddenly have no interest in the history of Israel or the Bible? If the primary problem is looting, that's the government's fault for being negligent in managing their property. Don't blame us collectors for being "intensely" interested in Israel's history! • • • • • • • Latin?Didn't the Roman Empire use Greek in that part of the world, and not Latin? Why would it be inscribed with Latin? • • • • • • • James OssuaryAs I was able to examine the ossuary when it was on exhibit at the ROM I had questions about its validity as a bonified artifact. Upon casefully reading all reports on the case I found authenticity of the James Ossuary in the liturature. The IGS found the patina on the box through the insctiption to be simular and if the last part was an addition to the inscription (due to writing or scribing style) it logically had to have occured far in the past hence the patina make up for that part of the writing would be different. I feel these statements to be in keeping with the most trained authorities and experts who are in a majority. It make no difference how any court decides, the facts stand for themselves. • • • • • • • JAMES OSSUARYIf authentic, the James Ossuary could negate the perpetual virginity of Mary Theotokos, which is a critical belief and devotion in Roman Catholicism. If James the Just (from ACTS) is Joseph's son from a prior marriage, why do not these children of Joseph appear in the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke? The Vatican only recently recognized the State of Israel; do we know if the Holy See has communicated diplomatically with Israeli authorities on the "forgery trial"? • • • • • • • james boxThis is not a comment - I don't know enough for that - it's a question. The names on the box - are they really literlally 'James" and "Jesus" or are they whatever James would be in Hebrew and Yeshua or Yahoshua instead of actually Jesus? Just curious. [The names are Yaakov, the Hebrew form of Jacob and from which the Latin name James derives, and Yeshua.--Ed.] • • • • • • • If quoting Latin (with a sense of humor...)Latine dictum, sit altum videtur (What's said in Latin always seems to be more interesting) • • • • • • • If quoting LatinLaudo latin probo nusquam. The quoting of Latin proves nothing. • • • • • • • James OssuaryThe inscription on the bone box is something a "Born Again" Christian or a Messianic Jew would love, but it remains as something an Orthox Jew would hate. Observat Jews would cheer if the inscription turns out to be a forgery. Christians would celebrate about a relic concerning their Lord and Savior. • • • • • • • Courtroom ForgeriesOne reader expressed amazement that "a Western court of law would entertain a case with so little evidence and so many questions about the scientific basis of the evidence." But we are not speaking of a western court of law or western sensibilities. We are speaking instead about a hot political setting in the Middle East where tensions have been rubbed raw and where governmental authorities are used to taking a heavy handed approach because of the harsh political realities in which they exist. It is a shame that such things spill over into academic studies, but it is foolish to expect otherwise. • • • • • • • if quoting Latin ...Qui culpae ignoscit uni, suadet pluribus. (The one who excuses one fault ends up encouraging it in many others) • • • • • • • |
Israel Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) ForgersHershel Shanks: Trial Reaching Climax?A Prosecutor CommentsBurleigh: Questions from an AuthorShanks Responds to BurleighInside DebatesScholars Debate “Jezebel” SealIsrael Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) ForgersSeal Controversy: From Temech to Shlomit“Jesus Tomb” Controversy Erupts—Again |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
The criminal case in a Jerusalem court against what was ballyhooed as a major ring of forgers and forgery dealers has now had its third birthday. And it is about to reach a climax of sorts.