|
< Back to Israel Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) Forgers Introduction Israel Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) ForgersHershel Shanks: “Prosecutorial Misconduct” in Israeli Forgery Case? Talkback Add Your Comment
You may wonder why the tough, no-holds-barred Israeli press has not covered the “forgery trial of the century” ongoing in Jerusalem. Zip. Nothing! This may be because the Israeli public simply is not interested. Or it may be because the trial is too difficult (or expensive) to cover. The case is now in its fourth year—and counting. The prosecution has called more than 120 witnesses to testify. The transcript of the trial runs to more than 8000 pages. Only two outside observers have consistently attended the trial day in and day out—a free-lance journalist named Matthew Kalman and archaeologist/journalist Meir Ben-Dov. I suspect each of them intends to write a book about the case when it is over. Finally, last October Kalman got a piece published in the San Francisco Chronicle, a prominent Hearst newspaper that, unfortunately, the owner has threatened with closure as I write. Kalman knows a news hook when he sees one: The judge in the forgery trial, Aharon Farkash, had announced in open court, but off the record (his remarks will not appear in the official transcript), that the prosecution should consider dropping the case! “Have you really proved beyond a reasonable doubt that these artifacts are fake?” the judge pointedly asked the prosecution. ̴Maybe we can save ourselves the rest [of the trial if the prosecution is dropped now],” the judge told the prosecutor. “Case Involving Jesus’ Brother Burial Box Hoax on Verge of Collapse,” blared the headline in the Chronicle. Still nothing about the case in the Israeli press. Were they disinterested? Or embarrassed because they hadn’t covered the trial earlier? In any American court, if the judge made a pronouncement like this in a case that he alone would decide, the prosecution would be promptly dropped. Not so in this case. The Israeli prosecutor has decided to plod on. Then on April 1, 2009, after the second of the two remaining defendants testified, Kalman wrote another story. This time it was published in the Jerusalem Post, one of Israel’s leading newspapers. The story recounted some of the testimony of defendant Robert Deutsch: He charged the government with a “witchhunt” initiated by the Israel Antiquities Authority in an attempt to shut down the legal trade in antiquities. “I’ve never faked anything in my life," declared Deutsch. “I’m the first person to call something a fake, because it pollutes the profession that I have made my expertise...I don’t know how much lower they can get, the people who cooked up this trial.” The government “fabricated this entire indictment, the whole thing, from A to Z,” Deutsch testified. According to Kalman’s evaluation of the evidence, the defendants have produced “compelling evidence” that the artifacts alleged to be forgeries are in fact authentic. Kalman noted that before the trial Shuka Dorfman, director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, had described one of the items alleged to be a forgery as “the tip of the iceberg.” The forgeries charged in the indictment would have “worldwide repercussions.” These forgeries, he said, were nothing less than “an attempt to change the history of the Jewish and Christian people.” Four years later, Kalman wrote, no one else has been charged and two of the original defendants have been dismissed. A third pleaded guilty to a minor offense unrelated to forgery, leaving only two defendants remaining. And no conspiracy has been shown. As a result of the indictment, however, Deutsch has been fired from his teaching post at the University of Haifa and dismissed as a supervisor at the archaeological excavations at Megiddo. He has even tried to dismiss his lawyer because of spiraling litigation costs (the judge wouldn’t allow it), Kalman’s story in the Jerusalem Post recounted. The day after Kalman’s story appeared I was reading my Washington Post at breakfast. A story on page one reported on the prosecutorial misconduct in the criminal case the United States government had brought against former senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. The new attorney general, Eric Holder, had decided to drop the case against Stevens and ordered an investigation of the prosecutorial misconduct in that case to determine whether charges should be brought against the attorneys who had prosecuted the case and who had been guilty of the misconduct. (The judge in the Stevens case has since ordered his own independent investigation of the prosecutorial misconduct.) The Washington Post story quoted a distinguished former United States prosecutor, Joseph diGenova: “The power to prosecute is the power to destroy.” This vividly reminded me of the prosecution against Robert Deutsch in the Jerusalem forgery case. It is indeed the power to destroy. Was there sufficient evidence to prosecute the defendants in the Jerusalem forgery case? What lies behind the government’s refusal to take the judge’s suggestion and drop the case? Was the government guilty of prosecutorial misconduct, either by the lawyers or those who conducted the investigation that led to the indictment? This is a case that has not only destroyed private lives, but has sought to damage Israel’s heritage by casting doubt on valuable authentic artifacts that reveal its past. If Kalman’s story in the Jerusalem Post is accurate, nothing less is at stake than the integrity of Israel’s judicial system. The appropriate authorities should promptly open an investigation of prosecutorial misconduct in the “forgery trial of the century.”—H.S.
BAR readers grammarRaymond, is Mr. Zias lieing, lying, laying or ....I'm confused. • • • • • • • Mr Zias's Obvious lieingDr. Paul Eklund is the world's leading deception expert. If you lie to Eklund he'll see it in your face and your posture or hear it in your voice. If you shrug your shoulder, rotate your hand or even just slightly raise your lower lip, Eklund will spot the lie. By analyzing facial expressions and involuntary body language, he can read feelings ranging from hidden resentment to sexual attraction to jealousy. Mr. Zias moves his hands as stated showing his lies! Caught right there on video! • • • • • • • why do people let wishful thinking cloud their judgement?I can clearly see that the writing of the latter part of the inscription is different from the former. Because of this, & because the box belonged to Oded Golan, who had a huge cache of forging implements - including bags of soil from various sites in Israel for recreating patinas - I think it is fake. Oded Golan is also at the heart of the Jehoash Inscription fakery. These types of forgeries are RAMPANT: adding inscriptions to genuine artifacts. Please let's not be taken in by wishful thinking. • • • • • • • Shuka Dorfman spills the truthShuka Dorfman says the forgery is "an attempt to change the history of the Jewish and Christian people." The James bone box will change the history of the Jewish and Christian people by telling the truth about Jesus. This is why the IA Authority must try to suppress the truth with charges of forgery. Scholars and others invested in the false history, help in the suppression by sacrificing their integrity and scholarship for fear of their career. Hershel Shanks is a fearless seeker of truth! • • • • • • • Lying ScholarHerschel Shanks calls them as he sees them. Joe Zias, lied about the James bone box. The box is authentic and Joe Zias' word is not. Herschel Shanks is exposing a Jesus-gate coverup. • • • • • • • James OssuaryMr. Yimeyahu, it is difficult for me to understand your argument. Joseph Zias' proposed testimony in the criminal trial against Golan & ex-professor Deustch, is that he (Zias) had seen the disputed bone box at a shop, before that same box had reached the hands of Golan. Zias further states that he observed, that the box was a common ossuary, with common inscriptions. Therefore, Zias' testimony is that Oded's bone box is an altered version of the same bone box that Zias saw in the shop. • • • • • • • Zias is the guy who "lost" ossuaryOssuary IAA 80-509 was catalogued, along with the other 9 from Talpiot Tomb, at Rockefeller Museum BY Joe Zias, chief IAA anthropologist in 1980. Ossuary was already lost, therefore not catalogued by Rahmani. This suggests Zias as suspect who "lost" the ossuary in the first place (for the $2 mil?) and now MUST cover his own rear by claiming the ossuary isn't the real one "missing" on his watch. Of all the experts, Zias has most questions to answer, possible ulterior motive & no credibility. • • • • • • • Authenticity of James Ossuary ProvedFor an epiphany, please read, "The Jesus Family Tomb" by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino who performed an in-depth investigation including scientific testing, probability calculations, & Scriptural references that combined proved not only that The Tomb was Jesus's family tomb, but that the James Ossuary was from this same Tomb. It takes courage to pursue the truth. The Ossuary & Inscription is authentic. • • • • • • • HIDDEN AGENDAS: An Editor's ConflictHIDDEN AGENDAS: An editor's conflict If "hidden agenda" is defined as having an ulterior or undisclosed motive, then Mr. Hulme should ask himself: Is it suspect that BAR editor, Hershel Shanks failed to reveal in his reply to Burleigh, that editor Shanks was the person who disclosed existence of the alleged James Ossuary at a news conference in November, 2002. Based on that circumstance, would editor Shanks' statements supporting authenticity of Oded's Bone Box be suspect as self serving. The BAR journal is a respected source for archaeological and anthropological discoveries and reference. But, by all journalistic standards, editor Shanks has compromised the credibility and objectivity of BAR by pasting his personal preferences under the guise of being an authority in the discipline. Instead, editor Shanks has merely established that he is the exclusive authority on when, where, why and how a Shanks article will be published in his magazine. As a college student, I was instructed in journalism by a chief copyright editor of the Chicago Tribune. Even at that introductory level of journalism, editor Shanks' approach to his magazine violates editorial standards. As an attorney and trained social scientist with post graduate work in Humanities, I find it especially disturbing that editor Shanks publishes himself in his rolled-up magazine, in order to swat away the critics to his defense of Deutsch and Golan, while cursing those critics by shouting "Lemair." Readers of BAR should dismiss editor Shank's comments on IAA v. Golan, et al as non-vetted, self serving fodder, designed to help contributing friends who have gotten themselves in serious trouble. After critical editing of BAR in that manner, readers will be left with a credible source of biblical archaeology. RAY OLIVER, ESQ. • • • • • • • Commentary: Hidden Agenda?I read Mr. Hulme's comment that there are "too many hidden agendas." I assume that Mr. Hulme is referring to my recent reliance on socio-religious sources as a hidden agenda. Presumably, Mr. Hulme feels that my socio-religious (evidentiary) references are disguised agendas for a religious preference. The implication is that this "religious preference" does not belong in a purportedly academic debate on archaelogical authenticity. The Hulme implied statement is that my references to the Syoptic gospels, the Pontifical Institute, Jesuits and the works of great theologians have no bearing on the issue of the defendants' criminal culpability. First, Mr. Hulme needs to look at the indictment. Criminal counts in the indictment allege a criminal intent to damage an established religion. Therefore, socio-religious evidentiary references are relevant and probative of the issues raised by those counts of the indictment, which allege a criminal intent to damage a religion. The "real hidden agenda" is more subtle and dangerous. It is an agenda by an editor that fails to limit his personal preferences to an editorial column and paints his personal magazine with the brush of an indicted ex academic authority in furtherance of that editor's preferred trial outcome. The criminal trial is not the Harvard Austin-Strawson debate on truth. It is an evidentiary case of greedy people who hid their identities in a criminal conspiracy to sell fraudulent antiquities. • • • • • • • The James OssuaryThank you Mr Shanks for keeping us informed on this continuing saga. Too many hidden agendas! Thank goodness the Israeli legal system can come up with a judge of this calibre! It may seem that the ossuary is on trial - it is not - people are on trial, but will we get a legal ruling on the authenticity of the ossuary? Please Mr Shanks, stay healthy and continue your good work! • • • • • • • Oded's Bone Box- Implicated ossuary of JesusMatthew Kalman of the San Francisco Chronicle flatters me by adopting my bone box nomenclature, "Ossuary of Jesus." In my unpublished comment to Mr. Shanks, captioned "ODED BONE BOX: a footnote to James," I asserted that James is a mere footnote to the bone box. The direct implication of Oded's box is that Jesus was mortal, born of typical biological processes and left bones of mortality. The box attains importance because of its direct implication to Jesus. When puting the socio-religious issues in perspective, the defense of Oded, et al further withers when measured against the backdrop of the great theologians, Jesuits at the Pontifical Institute and the traditional reliability of the Synoptic gospels. But, my flattery is tempered by Hershel Shanks' witholding of my remarks on the "footnote to James." Thank you Micha-el Frame for you kind comments. RAY OLIVER, ESQ. • • • • • • • Oded Golan Ossuary: Is he buried or resurrected?Indeed, more than a year down the line and so many varied opinions, what is the latest status??!! In a court of law, the circumstantial evidence may be against him (as so well expounded by Ray Oliver below). But the real issue is the question of authenticity checked by many experts; and is this not, as ironic as it may be, a case of "cry wolf"? • • • • • • • Oded Golan Ossuary TrialThe article is dated February 2008. It is now March 2009. Was there an outcome in the trial? • • • • • • • ODED BONE BOX- Final CommentHershel Shanks and others seem to place a lot of weight on the trial experts in IAA v. Oded Golan, et al. Forget the experts. Expert testimony is not dispositive on the issue of culpability. As in all well prepared trials, there is a "battle of the experts." What is dispositive of Oded Golan's guilt is the overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence of fraud. Mr. Shanks and others ignore and downplay the confiscation of fraudulent antiquities that were found in Oded's manufacturing plant. Some fraudulent artifacts were partially completed. Others were complete and ready for sale to people like poor Musaif. Additional incriminating evidence was seized. A forger's tools of the trade, together with ancient materials to execute the fraud on a grand scale is also part of the government's evidentiary case against the defendant(s). This case will turn on the totality of the direct and circumstantial evidence of criminal activity and guilt. Further, I am amazed that so called intelligent people are arguing that Oded's Bone Box is the authentic ossuary of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, despite the existence of accompanying fraudulent artifacts. Oded's Bone Box was a shelf item which was part of the large inventory in Oded's antiquities manufacturing plant. Is it beyond reason to agree with the accusation that the names on the box were "tweaked" as part of the overall scheme of producing fraudulent items. To those who argue that the box is "authentic" and are ignoring the unquestionable lot of fraudulent items found in the raid at the same time, ask yourself, "why would Oded manufacture ANY fake artifact if he believed that he possessed the ossuary of the historical Jesus?" I'm reminded of the Wizard of Oz's comments to the brainless scarecrow: "There are a lot of great thinkers in the world who have no more brains than you. But what they do have is a diploma..." So...would you make change with a counterfeiter while you stand next to his printing press and high piles of money? Would you buy a car door from a parts garage while the owner is cuffed and being dragged off to jail and he shouts back to you that the door you've picked from the hundreds of doors is the only door that actually came off of the arrested owner's car? So you are buying the only non-stolen door from the chop shop owner. Fat chance, right? Therefore, when the totality of the direct and circumstantial incriminating evidence is considered with the contradictory expert testimony, Oded Golan and co. will be convicted. To state Oded's guilt another way: Oded's defense is as slim as a cowboy's soup made from the shadow of a starving crow. Ultimately, the govt' will metaphorically put Oded's bones in that box. Too bad for Oded. He could have used the bone box as Moses' shoe box. And for those who blindly argue that Oded's Bone Box is authentic...I think I hear P.T. Barnum. Ray Oliver,Esq. • • • • • • • OssuaryIt is not only the Christian community that places great weigh on the discovery of relics or writings. This is a common act of all mankind to legitimize their persception of truth. I personally find the trial poorly constructed and yet interesting in what we are learning about who get's to give value and authenticity to any finds. We all are stirred by discovery and intrigue. But as a Christian, any new discoveries are not going to alter my faith. Faith is always about things unseen, about foot prints in history that I hope we continue to leave. I can pull my name up and find many similiar names, but it's what context that person's imprint has made that narrows the importance to others. God has given us this curiosity and drive to search for connections. The Ossuary has provided that. • • • • • • • Oded Bone BoxFor those who would authenticate the "Oded Bone Box," let me say this to you: After you trip over the forger's tools of the trade on the floor of the Oded Manufacturing plant and then ignore the incredible assembly line of Oded's designer label antiquity reproductions, let me bring you to the front of the factory to the show room. If the first temple artifacts are not interesting enough for you, then come back to the Oded Mfg. plant next week. The Oded company will be getting a new shipment of "Moses' slippers." Oh, how I would love to have these "shoppers" on the jury when defending clients charged with crimes. R. Oliver, Esq. • • • • • • • james ossuaryI am still trying to find out if James Ossuary was found in its original context and if not where was it in situ. • • • • • • • 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) • • • • • • • |
 Incomparable Israelwith expert scholar-guide Amnon Wallenstein February 1–16, 2010
Visit one of the world’s most sacred and history-drenched lands on an adventure that only we can provide. Join BAS in Israel!
|
||||||||||
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER |
