|
< Back to “A Committee of One: Yuval Goren” NewsLeading Scholar Lambastes IAA Committee Talkback Add Your Comment
Appointing a committee to decide whether or not the ossuary inscription is a forgery, instead of allowing the scholarly discussion to play out, has “politicized archaeology,” Fitzmyer writes. By appointing a committee that has declared the ossuary inscription to be a modern forgery, the issue “has become a matter of politicized archaeology, advocated by the highest authority on antiquities in the State of Israel.” Fitzmyer also harshly criticizes the actual work of the committee, headed by the assistant director of the IAA, Uzi Dahari. Fitzmyer notes that there is no Final Report to which all members subscribed, only individual statements by the 14 committee members. These members were chosen, as they admit, even if they had previously expressed an opinion about the authenticity of the inscription. But all such previously opinioned members “had uttered a negative opinion,” not some positive and some negative. This, says Fitzmyer, may raise “a question of a priori prejudice.” The IAA says that “the most suitable experts were chosen” to be on the committee. And its conclusion appears to be unanimous. The committee report concludes without qualification: “To the best of our scientific judgment ... the James Ossuary inscription is a forgery.” But, notes Fitzmyer, “When one reads the individual comments of the members ... one finds that several of these [individual] statements are strikingly nuanced, despite the [absolute] negative conclusions [of the committee report]. Moreover, the judgment expressed [in the individual statements] sometimes depends on reasons other than the individuals’ ‘own expertise,’ which was part of the original mandate of the IAA when it set up the committees.” In one individual statement, the committee member in effect disqualified himself, but “his vote has somehow been part of the ‘scientific judgment’ of the Final Report.” Another individual statement admits that the writer is not “an expert on ... carved inscriptions or palaeography” and that her decision that the inscription is a forgery relied on what “experts have determined.” Fitzmyer pointedly notes that she does not tell us what experts she relied upon. Like the Final Report, she does not consider Lemaire’s views. Another committee member, based on his own expertise, would have found the inscription to be authentic, but, as he admits, “I am forced to change my opinion” by the scientific evidence—in which he had no expertise. Still another committee member stated that based on her own expertise, she could not express an opinion. Fitzmyer comments: “That should be recorded at least as an abstention, and not a negative vote.”
Romã do temploAfter the images of the artifact made by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) conducted by Professor Yitzhak Romano, Hebrew University confirming the authenticity of the pomegranate, anyone still doubt? I would MUCH, note that in the Museum of Jerusalem inform the name of the person responsible for this finding, ie the pomegranate, as important part to Biblical history. • • • • • • • Yuval GorenYuval Goren manifests the values and ethics of Jezebel, the goal is to bring chaos to order, destruction to scientific growth. Until he gets the help he needs, the BAR should shun him. billhalle@optonline.net • • • • • • • Who found the Pomegranate?Can you tell me how the Pomegranate was found? By Whom, when? • • • • • • • Ron WyattI always believed Ron Wyatt found this ivory pomegranate in a cave under The Garden Tomb. • • • • • • • Almond Bud TheoryRegarding the theory of the Almond Bud versus the Pomegranate: Almond flowers have 5 petals whereas pomegranates have 6 protrusions at their tip, as with the ivory in question. Just an observation. Pace, Kimberlee • • • • • • • Ivory PomegranateI wonder if they all have it wrong. That is not an ivory pomegranate. It is an ivory almond bud! It represents Aaron’s rod that budded, and was one of the three items placed in the Ark. The almond buds on Aaron’s rod confirmed the priesthood as clearly describ3ed in the Bible. The almond bud has a lot more to do with the priesthood of Solomon’s Temple then the pomegranate which was only frill on the robe. • • • • • • • pomegranateIt would seem to me that the default position for a large number of scholars is to deny the authenticity of artifacts. We all know that there are forgeries from time to time, but why is it that there is this bias against authenticity? Fortunately, there are careful scholars who keep working to demonstrate how wrong these naysayers really are. But one wonders if the latter will ever learn from their mistakes. Would it not be more profitable to, after careful and cautious observations, come down on the side of authenticity unless there is clear evidence to the contrary? In my mind it would reinforce the desire to dig more instead of having the prevailing attitude: "Well, it's probably going to be deemed a fake so why bother?" • • • • • • • Historical Anomaly adn the New ChronologyThe current authentication of the ivory pomegranate artifact is probably one of the best proofs for the New Chronolgy model formulated by David Rohl. According to this model Egyptian chronology should be lowered by some 300 years. This would mean that the Temple in Jerusalem was built in the Late Bronze Age. As you are probably aware inscribed on the pomeganate is a dedication to the Temple in Jerusalem. Dr. Andre Lemaire many years ago examined the writing and determined it was from the 8th century BCE. However examination of the pomegranate determined that the pomegranate itself was from the Late Bronze Age. So according to the conventional chronology this would pose an extreme anomaly. Of course one could argue that somehow the individual who made this inscription used an ancient pomegranate. But this, after a little thought, will be rejected out of hand. Are we really to believe that someone had in his posession an antique dating some 500 years earlier and decided to inscribe on it. Also because the inscription reads".... consecrated to the Priests" This would mean that it was intednded to be used in the Temple. Why would anyone use something so old and delicate in the Temple. Clearly any item intended for use in the Temple would have been made then, not from a time when according to the conventional chronology the Cannanites ruled the land. Any item from that time would have been considered pagan. Therefore having this pomegranate which dates to the Late Bronze Age and yet having the writing date hundreds of years later is an extreme problem. Unless of course one adopts the New Chronolgy model which could rectify this historical anomaly. Rabbi Stuart Steinberg • • • • • • • Pomegranate ReaxminationIn his written report Prof. Roman does indeed state that the patina in the incised letters is ancient. He also states that he "found no evidence that there are missing letters" and that it was not clear to him on what basis it was suggested that the missing letters were 'Yod' ,'He', 'Waw'. These missing letters are required for the suggested reading 'Yahweh' Therefore a possible conclusion from his expert opinion is that while the pomegranate is ancient, it is not necessarily associated with the Temple in Jerusalem, or with any other pre-exilic temple. For the that, apparently, more evidence would be required. • • • • • • • |
 The Biblical Archaeology Society is an educational non-profit 501c(3) organization. Make a tax-deductible gift today. BRAND NEWAncient Board Games February 11, 2013 The Nubian Pyramids of Sedeinga February 08, 2013 The Last Days of Hattusa February 08, 2013 Who Were the Essenes? February 07, 2013 Charles Fellows in Aphrodisias February 05, 2013 MOST POPULARHow Archaeology Illuminates the Bible Why Jesus Went Back to Galilee FREE BIBLE AND ARCHAEOLOGY ARTICLESWhere Is Sodom? The Case for Tall el-Hammam FIRST PERSON: What to Do with Unprovenanced Artifacts—Publish or Perish? BIBLICAL VIEWS: Images of Crucifixion: Fresh Evidence ARCHAEOLOGICAL VIEWS: Israelite Life Before the Kings THE BIBLE IN THE NEWS: Make No Bones About It SCHOLAR’S STUDYMore on the Mosaics December 12, 2012 Critical Biblical Scholarship—A Response October 10, 2012 BAR Authors Respond to Readers’ Letters October 10, 2012 Who Really Invented the Alphabet—Illiterate Miners or Educated Sophisticates? September 13, 2012 Three Takes on the Oldest Hebrew Inscription August 08, 2012
Forgery Conference
 |
INFORMATION |
PUBLICATIONS |
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY SOCIETY NETWORK LINKS |
In a recent article, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., one of the most highly respected Aramaicists and New Testament scholars in the world, has lambasted the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) for the work of its committee that declared the James Ossuary inscription to be a forgery. The inscription reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”; it received enormous publicity when its existence was first announced in an article in BAR by Professor André Lemaire,a whom Fitzmyer identifies as “a well-known and competent French epigrapher from the Sorbonne in Paris.” The IAA committee, as Fitzmyer notes, was composed of “14 Israeli scholars, with no contributions from non-Israeli experts and, strikingly, [the committee’s Final Report makes] no mention or recognition of the competence of ... Professor Lemaire,” who judged the inscription authentic.
