|
< Back to Israel Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) Forgers Introduction Israel Antiquities Authority vs. Conspiracy of (Alleged) ForgersHershel Shanks: Has Joe Zias Shown the James Ossuary Inscription to Be a Modern Forgery? Talkback Add Your Comment
I take no pleasure in raising this very difficult subject again—the question as to whether a well-known scholar is lying. I do so only because it so very important. If he is telling the truth, it is certain that the reference to Jesus in the James Ossuary Inscription (“James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”) is a forgery. If he is lying, he may well be responsible for the “forgery trial of the century” that is now going into its fifth year in a Jerusalem courtroom. In November 2003, Joe Zias, a well-known physical anthropologist formerly with the Israel Antiquities Authority, told me that he had seen the James ossuary in a Jerusalem antiquities shop in the early 1990s without the last two (three in English) words, “brother of Jesus.” A third party to the conversation seemed to confirm what Zias said. If true, the last two words must be a modern creation. I would not have published something like this from a chance conversation, but it turned out that Zias had told the same thing to Duke University archaeologist Eric Meyers, who published it on the internet.1 This made it a legitimate subject for discussion. In May/June 2005 I published a piece in BAR entitled “Lying Scholars?” in which I raised the question. (Subsequently, the third party to our conversation recanted; he admitted he had never seen the inscription in the antiquities shop.2) 
Since no one else, so far as I know, has made this accusation, Zias’s report of having seen the inscription without the last two words likely became the basis for the central claim of the criminal charge against the owner of the ossuary, Oded Golan. Nearly reiterating Zias’s words, the criminal indictment states: The method of forgery was characterized in that, in most cases, original antiquities were taken, and inscriptions...were added thereto transforming them into items of great value. Such forgeries were executed, inter alia, regarding the following antiquities: (a) The ossuary known as “The James Brother of Jesus Ossuary.”....To execute his scheme, Defendant No. 1 [Oded Golan] used an ancient ossuary...which bore an engraved inscription of “Jacob [James] son of Joseph.” Defendant No. 1 added to the ossuary...the words “Brother of Jesus,” in such a manner that these words were made to appear as part of the original inscription which had already appeared on the ossuary for two thousand years. So far as I am aware, the only basis for this accusation is Joe Zias’s statement of having seen the ossuary in an antiquities shop in the 1990s without the last two words. So far as I am aware, however, Zias has never repeated his stunning accusation—until now. Something else has become evident recently: The case against the ossuary inscription seems to be falling apart. At the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, the presiding judge (there are no juries in Israel) suggested to the prosecution that it consider dropping the case. “Not every case ends in the way you think it will when it starts. Maybe we can save ourselves the rest,” said the judge to the prosecution, according to Matthew Kalman, the only journalist who regularly covers the trial. “Where is the definitive proof that the accused faked the ossuary? You need to ask yourselves those questions very seriously,” the judge admonished. The judge’s remarks have been widely disseminated. Subsequently, Kalman interviewed Zias on camera. As if to bolster the prosecution’s case Zias repeated his accusation, apparently for the first time in five years: “The first part of the inscription is authentic,” Zias said. “Somebody took an object worth perhaps, maybe $200, added a couple of words and the price now goes up to $2 million. I remember that I had seen his name [? blurred] in an antiquities shop in the 1990s, so it couldn’t have been in the hands of Golan [then].” If Zias is telling the truth, the last part of the inscription, the reference to Jesus, must be a modern forgery. Notes
1. Eric Meyers, “More Evidence Ossuary a Fraud?” at www.bibleinterp.com. 2. The other party, Emile Puech, told a reporter for the Jerusalem Report that “he had glimpsed...a pinkish bone box...20 years ago. He also says today that he can barely recall the ... ossuary, didn’t even notice if it had an inscription, and having seen the Golan box only in photos, he can’t possibly say if they [the ossuary he saw in the antiquities shop and the Jesus ossuary] are one and the same.” Quoted in “Israeli Prosecutor Repudiates IAA Report on Forgery,” BAR, March/April 2005.
Ossuary Burial CustomEven if Golan's ossuary isn't genuine, and/or it's not the missing one from the JFT-Talpiot tomb (faked-patina), it's amazing to learn that the ossuary-burial custom of that MidEast region only existed approximately 100 years (30-some years before through 30-some years after Jesus)! If not Golan's ossuary, chances are that some of the other ossuaries catalogued by IAA belong to Jesus' earthly family, inner circle, and society! Members of Jesus' spiritual family ought to be intrigued! • • • • • • • Editor's ViewsIt seems that BAR is very selective in what it will or will not allow to be posted, especially it seems when it goes against the editor's views. • • • • • • • Other Expert Witnesses (than the 52)Why were the archaeologists Amos Kloner and Shimon Gibson, who excavated the Talpiot tomb, not called as expert witnesses? Barkay said, agreed with by Krumbein, that archaeologists should have priority in the decision. And the judge Aharon Farkash has a degree in archaeology. Golan would love to have the James ossuary linked with the Talpiot tomb. Golan's incentive is the increase in value of the James ossuary, if he is found not guilty. • • • • • • • GOLAN and IAAHard to argue with Oded Golan's evidence. I think that IAA has discredited itself...I wonder why they did this...because I do not think it was INCOMPETENCE...? • • • • • • • Outing TruthGolan's paper is an absolute must-read for anyone at all interested in the case. One of the many sad aspects of this whole affair is that its most comprehensive review has to come from the defendant himself. Another is that the popular-and even the scientific-press will probably continue to regard the IAA as the utmost authority in Biblical archaeology... • • • • • • • IAA's StanceCan IAA or anyone replicate the James ossuary? Are there any human dust-remains in James' ossuary and the Jesus ossuary that can be compared with other ossuaries of the "Jesus Family Tomb" or the other ossuaries of that time? Is IAA afraid of religious establishment-backlash? I believe that Jesus went to Heaven without the earthly body and sits at the right hand of "Our" (as in the Lord's Prayer) Father and is coming back, soon, but not in another earthly body. It's all in the New Testament. • • • • • • • IAA's Unsuprising InfluenceKilmon: "The question that will remain is how an organization (the IAA) with no legal authority influenced the Israeli justice system to go forward with this trial." His puzzlement puzzles me. The IAA is a politicized police force - charged with the unstated but obvious mandate of protecting Israel's (largely fundamentalist) Christian tourism industry - not some objective scientific institution. • • • • • • • Some Science is not Science at allThe Shroud of Turin is a great example of educated men claiming to be experts in age dating. Ten groups were given the task of calculating the age of the cloth and their findings ranged from 200 years to 2,000. The Carbon Dating Patina Methods depend entirely on an item being exposed to the atmosphere from day one. If the item spent a considerable time underground or sealed in a container, the aging science is severely flawed. But, try to get the one making the conclusions admit this. • • • • • • • WitnessesThe two archaeologists (Shimon Gibson and Amos Kloner) who were involved in the original excavations of the Talpiot tomb, were not called as expert witnesses. Why? • • • • • • • ODED'S PATINA DEFENSEOded's Patina Defense: The testimony of Oded's expert at trial was that "the patina could not have been created within the last 100 years." The testimony was NOT that the patina was 2000 yrs old. Oded's expert has admitted that Oded's Bone Box may be a forgery, but that the forgery would have occurred more than 100 years ago. Oded describes this testimony in his interview, which is available on youtube. Ray Oliver • • • • • • • Sorry - a proper question to the wrong person"Has Joe Zias Shown the James Ossuary Inscription to Be a Modern Forgery?" The answer is, of course, NO. Zias' MA is on witch healling around Chicago. Thus the question should not be presented to him. It's that simple. • • • • • • • ForgeryAs a Biblical scholar myself truth is the most important thing. You cannot put a prize on any actual artifact. The Bible is believed by faith but also by the spade. I do not feel in this day and time that people who do not specialize in the field of study should be selling or presenting these artifacts without a specialist. History is a sacred thing and should not be used for monetary gain. It is our proof what is real! • • • • • • • Oded's Time-line DefenseODED GOLAN'S TIME-LINE DEFENSE: The interview with Joe Zias on youtube contains impt evidentiary statements by Oded Golan. Golan states that his experts found that the ossuary "patina could not have been created within the past 100 yrs." Golan's defense is that the fake ossuary was created before his time- not that the bone box is authentic. I will post the link. Rayoliveresq • • • • • • • FORGERYWith careful examination and an Aramaic NT one can see James is the son of Zebedee and John is his brother.Matt.27:56 Mary is the mother of James and Joses, (whose name seems to be a nicknname and also to be a derivitive of John)who also is the mother of Zebedee's kids. Nonetheless in Matt.20;20-23 the mother of Zebedee's childeren is familiar enough with Jesus to ask HIM that her two sons sit on his right and left.Joseph must have died; as the scriptures become relatively quiet concerning him. • • • • • • • forgeryGiven the information that has been released, I think the inscription on the ossuary is fake. I also think the statement of the judge is correct, it is not something a court can rule on because experts disagree. However, in the US, there are numerous different tests of expert testimony and here (or in another country) much of the expert testimony would be inadmissible or assigned a low weight in the decision making process. Is it possible to get a copy of the 660+ page summation? • • • • • • • Suppression of Christian Archeology?Is the State of Israel using its "Police" powers to suppress Christian Archeology? The Prosecutors and the Judges are taking way too long to render a decision. Is this Legal Intimidation of "unorthodox" scientific views? Israel's scholarly reputation deserves better than this. • • • • • • • ossuaryThe real issue here is that because of politics these innocent men have had their names dragged through the mud for eight years. Their businesses have most likely been destroyed and it has cost them thousands of dollars of legal fees. Whether the ossuary is real or not is a moot point; it will join the ranks of the Shroud of Turin. What was on trial was whether or not these men had deliberately defrauded the rest of the world. • • • • • • • Jesus is the story, James confirms JesusJesus is the story, the James bone box confirms the Talpiot Tomb of Jesus to any who have eyes to see. The Truth shall set you free. • • • • • • • James OssuaryMichal, what does it matter ? Proven or not proven changes nothing. Whoever this James was died and they built a bone fox for him. How does that relate to the message of Yahushua the Nazarene ? the message to Love your neighbor as yourself, Love your enemy and do good to those that hate you. Not one iota changes. • • • • • • • James OssuaryTo Michal: I'm a Christian, and I fail to see why I should be scared if the James ossuary proves to be authentic. The box does not purport to be the box of the bones of "Jesus" but of his brother, James. If this is the same "Jesus" and "James" referred to in the NT, Catholics may have a problem with that (due to the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity), but not most Protestants. • • • • • • • Jack Kilmon & The Crock Bone BoxTo borrow vice president Nance Garner's expression, "Jack Kilmon's opinion isn't worth a glass of spit." Kilmon does not have an educational background in Humanities, Archaeology or social sciences. His "academia" web page lists no educational background information. Kilmon is not a recognized authority in the academic or professional archaeological field. For Kilmon to compare himself to the distinguished Professor Yuval Goren is like the newspaper boy comparing himself to the news Publisher. • • • • • • • James OssuaryWith very few exceptions, no one, regardless of religious affiliation, wants this bone box to be that of James, the brother of Jesus, for surely in so being it would turn Christianity on its absolute head, and Jewish Israel would lose about the only "friend" it's had for a few good many centuries. Most devoted Christians would find cause to doubt the authenticity even if DNA analysis of the bones themselves were able to prove this to be the bone box of James. Michal, respectfully. • • • • • • • Whether the authenticity of the James ossuary matters to Orthodox JewsMr. William DeSilvey, in an earlier comment, would have us believe that it is somehow important for Orthodox Jews that the ossuary be a fake. Interestingly, I am unaware of any Orthodox Jews involved in this court case or having expressed any meaningful opinion for or against its authenticity. In fact, religiously, this is a total non issue. But it is important for the well being of archaeology that we get a final verdict on whether anything was proved, regarding both ossuary and tablet. • • • • • • • TrialAfter all tese years... Does it really matter... will it make the world better? will the Judeo Christean world will feel at peace or more Bloodshed will come of this. None of the above.. It's ALL about the money...plain and simple. Please, I have hoped that TRULY was A GOD to see what people will do in his name for stone and dirt of thousands of years ago from a few yokels of the era that tried to give a message that actually NOBODY could get right in the first place.That's why we have this.... • • • • • • • Ancient forgery?I haven't been following this controversy for long. If the patina on the second half of the inscription is ancient, does this mean that both parts of the inscription were made at the same time? Was a single tool definitely used for the entire inscription? In other words, is it possible that the second half of the inscription was added long ago in order to pass off the ossuary as a religious relic? • • • • • • • James Ossuary FindingsWell, since Orthodox Jewry still awaits the Messiah, it would be incumbent upon them to do all in thier power to insist this is a forgery. Kind of like a few chapters in Isaiah that they really don't know what to do with. I believe archeologiocal findings to be important in the overall scheme of things; but I worship the Still-Living Christ, not some icon of His existence. That's my unprofessional, completely layperson viewpoint. • • • • • • • Poor analogyYour analogy is a red herring at best Mr. Oliver. You can't paste patina onto an ossuary and you can't duplicate historical artifacts. The ossuary has been authenticated and the judge has alerted the prosecution that they have no case. Your arguments and analogies are hot air. • • • • • • • Oded's Bone BoxThis is my final comment. Critics of the prosecution's case cannot point to bias, prejudice or motive of Joe Zias' observation that the ossuary was fraudulently altered with inscriptions, after he first observed the couple hundred dollar ossuary. Oded's bone box presents a simple analogy. Oded's bone box is like finding the authentic Christopher Columbus captain's luggage in an antique reproduction factory in Manhattan. You see; Oded's apartment was the reproduction factory- nice but fake. • • • • • • • Critical thinkers have to acknowledge that this is an incredible find...Lets put aside the fact that the people involved in bringing this discovery to light (Jacobovici, Pellegrino, & Tabor) have questionable overall credibility. Let's look ONLY at the discovery itself, the names on the ossuaries which were excavated legitimately in 1980: Mariame kai Mara = this literally says "Mary & Martha" (the sisters known from the NT). Joseh = NT Greek "Joses" (unique nickname of Jesus brother)...Jesus son of Joseph...The uncanniness of this cluster of names is astonishing... • • • • • • • Jesus Family Tomb bookWhere are the missing bones? Disposed of??!! Why isn't IAA testing mtDNA on all ossuary remains? Thank you Simcha, Dr. Charles and other experts for bravely availing the enlightenment of their astonishing discovery. The probabilities are logical. Christianity isn't about the myths and lies construed by those in power some 1700 years ago. The spell of a great delusion has been broken! If JFT isn't Christ's earthly family, then another one probably is. Many adored Jesus, not just the "poor" ones. • • • • • • • Reply to KonnMr. Konn. I did not miss the purported expert testimony on patina. I have reviwed the trial and have had the opportunity to talk to persons present at the trial. The trial entered the summation phase in May. Understand this; neither Joe Zias' credibility or anyone else's is determined by demeanor evidence. IAA does not need to prove the ossuary as a forgery beyond a reasonable doubt. Only Golan needs to be found guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is enough. • • • • • • • James Ossuary InscritionI admit I haven't followed this controversy very deeply; and it's difficult to determine if the James Ossuary is a forgery; but, for the life of me, why would the attribution Jacob, son of Joseph , brother of Jesus, necessarily refer to the Christian Saviour? These are common Semitic names, and the geneology is also a logical artifact of the culture. I know of Kennedys who named their sons John, Robert & Edward way back in the old sod, yet they are not the Boston Kennedys. Tempest in a Teapot? • • • • • • • PatinaNow that the patina has been analyzed what can be the conclusion? Since it is the same as the other Talpiot ossuaries there can only be 2 possibilities. The first is that it is genuine. The second is that Golan chipped off patina from ANOTHER Talpiot ossuary 20 years ago after the tomb was surveyed but before the ossuaries were moved to IAA. His window of opportunity could have only been the 24 hour period the ossuaries were outside unguarded. What are the odds? • • • • • • • Jesus TombThe Talpiot Tomb will validate that Jesus was born n the reign of King Jannai and Queen Salome. The Talpiot Tomb will be dated in the 1st Century BCE! Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness to the Qumraners of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Jesus the Nazarene to the Pharisee court under Queen Salome. • • • • • • • It's the electron microscopyMr Oliver, Perhaps you missed the elemental test on the ossuaries. I happen to understand the concepts and the testimony and there is almost no doubt if the samples are authentic that the ossuaries are from the same tomb. Therefore what Paqid Yirmeyahu is saying is that the ossuary that was originally entrusted to Joe Zias and then came up missing is that ossuary. If he says he saw it before then, that is false. You seem to want to believe his testimony regardless of the scientific evidence. • • • • • • • Zias impeachment testimonyRaymond: Your comment is bewildering. You mention a purported demeanor expert. Then you conclude from watching a video that Joe Zias' demeanor is evidence that Zias is lying. Aside from the fact that demeanor evidence, if any, has little evidentiary weight, you obviously are not the behavioral expert that you mentioned below. Your comment is specious reasoning. Also, I have nobserved Joe Zias' demeanor. I can unequivocably state, that Joe Zias is a man of few words- (10)words in fact. • • • • • • • James OssuaryInteresting that the judge is saying (apparently) the evidence of forgery is insufficient. Of course that doesn't mean it's legitimate but why on earth would the government push this case? Also, how can 'experts' be in such strong disagreement about the authenticity? Apparently, archaeology is not yet a science. Thank you. • • • • • • • 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) • • • • • • • |
 |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
