The Ossuary of James

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
Claire
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by Claire »

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Scientific experts concluded a 99% probability the name "Jesus" inscribed on the ossuary refers to Jesus of Nazareth, based on statistical analysis of the first century, which is as good as you'll get regarding people that long ago.
Really? Was that a peer reviewed paper or just another lame assertion?
It's probability, not an assertion. And, there's not a peer-reviewed paper on their statistical analysis result yet, but I'm sure you realize this doesn't "prove" anything.
SEG wrote:Well let's see the evidence.
See my opening post.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:I heard that Scientific experts concluded a 99% probability the name "Jesus" inscribed on the ossuary DOES NOT refer to Jesus of Nazareth, based on statistical analysis of the first century.
Cite the experts/result.
You go first. Mine was bullshit, the same as yours.
I did. See my opening post.
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Considering this, and how Jesus and James of Alphaeus were like brothers, etc, I can deduce that James, and the James of the ossuary, are one in the same.
What make you say that? Did they play together as children or chat to their parents in a family meeting? Papias of Hierapolis would say that his mother was the wife of Alphaeus. If she was, she couldn't be the wife of Joseph could she?
Papias of Hierapolis, who lived circa 70–163 AD, in the surviving fragments of his work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord relates that Mary, wife of Alphaeus is mother of James the Less
See my opening post for what makes me say that. As for Papias, he's correct, and more than one Mary existed, jsyk. So, did you deliberately leave out, or fail to notice the colon at the end of that quote, as well as Papias's quote that followed, when you copied it from Wikipedia:
Papias of Hierapolis, who lived circa 70–163 AD, in the surviving fragments of his work Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord relates that Mary, wife of Alphaeus is mother of James the Less:

Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas. [5]
SEG wrote:So there were two sisters, both named Mary? That would have been very confusing! Don't you feel somewhat ridiculous trying to twist something into what isn't there?
Jesus's father, Joseph, and Alphaeus were brothers, and their spouses were both named Mary, thus the two women were sisters, as in sisters-in-law. Hegesippus (110-180 CE) asserts in Ecclesiastical History that Cleophas (or Alphaeus) was the brother of Joseph, and it's implied by Papias of Hierapolis (60–163 AD) in Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord (fragment X), etc. As for my question, what's the answer?
SEG wrote:If this James the so called brother of Jesus had his own tomb, what happened to the so called tomb of Jesus?
James had his own ossuary, a limestone box, which isn't a tomb. And, Jesus's tomb is irrelevant to this topic, but feel free to create a thread.
"He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from distress" -- Prov. 21:23

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by searchengineguy »

This whole thread is a waste of time. Get back to me when you have some evidence that is verifiable and goes somewhere.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by Claire »

SEG wrote:This whole thread is a waste of time. Get back to me when you have some evidence that is verifiable and goes somewhere.
In the meantime, scientific experts have concluded a 99% probability the name "Jesus" inscribed on the ossuary of James, and Jesus of Nazareth, are one and the same. And, your questions in attempt to cast doubt on that result were proven fruitless. Additionally, since you avoided explaining why you cut off the quote you copied, I assume you were being deliberately deceptive.
"He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from distress" -- Prov. 21:23

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by searchengineguy »

Source: Israel Times.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 8812056055

The 'James ossuary,' one of the pieces at the center of Golan's forgery trial, had been hailed by some scholars as the first physical proof for the existence of Jesus.
The 'James ossuary,' one of the pieces at the center of Golan's forgery trial, had been hailed by some scholars as the first physical proof for the existence of Jesus (photo credit: So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?
The failure of a high-profile prosecution for antiquities fraud perpetuates the mystery of a find hailed as physical proof that Jesus existed
By MATTI FRIEDMAN
14 Mar 2012, 6:20 pm

Oded Golan, the Tel Aviv collector accused of forging biblical artifacts, was at the center of a seven-year trial that ended in his acquittal Wednesday. But he was never its star — that role belonged to the artifacts themselves.

While the significance of the exoneration for Golan himself is obvious, what it means for the antiquities is less clear.

The most famous of the artifacts is a stone box known as the “James ossuary,” exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum a decade ago and touted by some scholars as the first archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus. It bears an Aramaic inscription reading, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UPOded Golan was acquitted Wednesday of forging antiquities, but the judge did not rule whether the artifacts in question were genuine or fake (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)
Oded Golan was acquitted Wednesday of forging antiquities, but the judge did not rule whether the artifacts in question were genuine or fake (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)
The prosecution claimed Golan had taken a genuine but common ossuary inscribed with the words “James, son of Joseph,” and added the words “brother of Jesus,” turning it into a find of global importance and vast worth. Then, according to the charge, he manufactured a fake patina — the thin film of grime that typically accumulates over centuries — and applied it to the new inscription to make it seem ancient.

He was also accused of manufacturing the ancient Hebrew inscription on a rectangular piece of stone known as the “Jehoash tablet,” which recounted a Temple renovation by a king of Jerusalem in the 9th century B.C.E. If genuine, the tablet is one of the most spectacular items ever to have surfaced in the world of biblical archaeology.

Golan was also accused of forging a string of other artifacts, including clay seal imprints, a lamp, and a ceramic decanter. He denied all of the accusations and was acquitted of all charges of forgery and fraud. The judge convicted him only of lesser offenses: possessing objects suspected of being stolen and selling antiquities without a license.

The case offered a glimpse at the murky world of biblical antiquities, where objects often surface not in excavations but on the black market, their origins unclear and their authenticity difficult or impossible to confirm. Golan said he had obtained most of the objects in question, including the ossuary, from dealers, most of them Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The Jehoash tablet, with an inscription in ancient Hebrew, was one of the objects at the center of the trial (photo credit: Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority)
The Jehoash tablet, with an inscription in ancient Hebrew, was one of the objects at the center of the trial (photo credit: Courtesy the Israel Antiquities Authority)
The thirst for objects that offer a physical link to the world of the Bible, and the sums involved — the Jehoash tablet was purportedly offered to the Israel Museum for $4 million, though no sale ever took place — would make objects of this type well worth a forger’s time.

The Golan case has had the effect of making collectors and experts more suspicious of forgeries, and museums have reviewed their collections looking for fakes. Because of the trial, the Israel Antiquities Authority wrote in its response to the verdict, “there has been an almost complete cessation of the publication of finds that come from the antiquities market without first knowing their exact place of discovery, and the trade in written documents and seals derived from illicit antiquities excavations has been halted almost entirely.”

In his ruling Wednesday, the judge went out of his way to say that the fact Golan had been found not guilty did not mean the artifacts were real.

His decision to clear Golan of forging the inscription on the James ossuary, he wrote, “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell.

“Moreover,” he wrote, “it was not proven in any way that the words ‘the brother of Jesus’ necessarily refer to the ‘Jesus’ who appears in Christian writings.”

This applies to all of the artifacts in question, he added several hundred pages later in the lengthy text of his decision: “All that has been established is that the tools and the science currently at the disposal of the experts who testified were not sufficient to prove the alleged forgeries beyond a reasonable doubt as is required by criminal law.”

In short, the case’s conclusion does not establish whether or not the James ossuary, the Jehoash tablet, or any of the artifacts in questions are historic discoveries or slick fakes.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by searchengineguy »

If you have any evidence that the ossuary is genuine and not a fraud, let's see it. Or anything that verifies that this ossuary is linked to the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible. This 99% bullshit is laughable and is not able to be verified. What makes it 99% and not 89%?
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by Claire »

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:This whole thread is a waste of time. Get back to me when you have some evidence that is verifiable and goes somewhere.
In the meantime, scientific experts have concluded a 99% probability the name "Jesus" inscribed on the ossuary of James, and Jesus of Nazareth, are one and the same. And, your questions in attempt to cast doubt on that result were proven fruitless. Additionally, since you avoided explaining why you cut off the quote you copied, I assume you were being deliberately deceptive.
This 99% bullshit is laughable and is not able to be verified. What makes it 99% and not 89%?
Mathematics.
SEG wrote:Source: Israel Times.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/oded-gola ... -for-real/

If you have any evidence that the ossuary is genuine and not a fraud, let's see it. Or anything that verifies that this ossuary is linked to the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible.
Already addressed. See previous posts.
"He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from distress" -- Prov. 21:23

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by searchengineguy »

Claire wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:46 pm
In the meantime, scientific experts have concluded a 99% probability the name "Jesus" inscribed on the ossuary of James, and Jesus of Nazareth, are one and the same. And, your questions in attempt to cast doubt on that result were proven fruitless. Additionally, since you avoided explaining why you cut off the quote you copied, I assume you were being deliberately deceptive.
SEG wrote:This 99% bullshit is laughable and is not able to be verified. What makes it 99% and not 89%?
Claire wrote:Mathematics.
Please explain?
SEG wrote:Source: Israel Times.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/oded-gola ... -for-real/

If you have any evidence that the ossuary is genuine and not a fraud, let's see it. Or anything that verifies that this ossuary is linked to the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible.
Already addressed. See previous posts.
You didn't address these valid points:
The 'James ossuary,' one of the pieces at the center of Golan's forgery trial, had been hailed by some scholars as the first physical proof for the existence of Jesus.
The 'James ossuary,' one of the pieces at the center of Golan's forgery trial, had been hailed by some scholars as the first physical proof for the existence of Jesus (photo credit: So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?
The failure of a high-profile prosecution for antiquities fraud perpetuates the mystery of a find hailed as physical proof that Jesus existed
By MATTI FRIEDMAN
14 Mar 2012, 6:20 pm

Oded Golan, the Tel Aviv collector accused of forging biblical artifacts, was at the center of a seven-year trial that ended in his acquittal Wednesday. But he was never its star — that role belonged to the artifacts themselves.

While the significance of the exoneration for Golan himself is obvious, what it means for the antiquities is less clear.

The most famous of the artifacts is a stone box known as the “James ossuary,” exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum a decade ago and touted by some scholars as the first archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus. It bears an Aramaic inscription reading, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UPOded Golan was acquitted Wednesday of forging antiquities, but the judge did not rule whether the artifacts in question were genuine or fake (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)
Oded Golan was acquitted Wednesday of forging antiquities, but the judge did not rule whether the artifacts in question were genuine or fake (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)
The prosecution claimed Golan had taken a genuine but common ossuary inscribed with the words “James, son of Joseph,” and added the words “brother of Jesus,” turning it into a find of global importance and vast worth. Then, according to the charge, he manufactured a fake patina — the thin film of grime that typically accumulates over centuries — and applied it to the new inscription to make it seem ancient.

He was also accused of manufacturing the ancient Hebrew inscription on a rectangular piece of stone known as the “Jehoash tablet,” which recounted a Temple renovation by a king of Jerusalem in the 9th century B.C.E. If genuine, the tablet is one of the most spectacular items ever to have surfaced in the world of biblical archaeology.

Golan was also accused of forging a string of other artifacts, including clay seal imprints, a lamp, and a ceramic decanter. He denied all of the accusations and was acquitted of all charges of forgery and fraud. The judge convicted him only of lesser offenses: possessing objects suspected of being stolen and selling antiquities without a license.

The case offered a glimpse at the murky world of biblical antiquities, where objects often surface not in excavations but on the black market, their origins unclear and their authenticity difficult or impossible to confirm. Golan said he had obtained most of the objects in question, including the ossuary, from dealers, most of them Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The thirst for objects that offer a physical link to the world of the Bible, and the sums involved — the Jehoash tablet was purportedly offered to the Israel Museum for $4 million, though no sale ever took place — would make objects of this type well worth a forger’s time.

The Golan case has had the effect of making collectors and experts more suspicious of forgeries, and museums have reviewed their collections looking for fakes. Because of the trial, the Israel Antiquities Authority wrote in its response to the verdict, “there has been an almost complete cessation of the publication of finds that come from the antiquities market without first knowing their exact place of discovery, and the trade in written documents and seals derived from illicit antiquities excavations has been halted almost entirely.”

In his ruling Wednesday, the judge went out of his way to say that the fact Golan had been found not guilty did not mean the artifacts were real.

His decision to clear Golan of forging the inscription on the James ossuary, he wrote, “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell.

“Moreover,” he wrote, “it was not proven in any way that the words ‘the brother of Jesus’ necessarily refer to the ‘Jesus’ who appears in Christian writings.”

This applies to all of the artifacts in question, he added several hundred pages later in the lengthy text of his decision: “All that has been established is that the tools and the science currently at the disposal of the experts who testified were not sufficient to prove the alleged forgeries beyond a reasonable doubt as is required by criminal law.”

In short, the case’s conclusion does not establish whether or not the James ossuary, the Jehoash tablet, or any of the artifacts in questions are historic discoveries or slick fakes.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by Claire »

Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:In the meantime, scientific experts have concluded a 99% probability the name "Jesus" inscribed on the ossuary of James, and Jesus of Nazareth, are one and the same.
This 99% bullshit is laughable and is not able to be verified. What makes it 99% and not 89%?
Mathematics.
SEG wrote:Please explain?
Explain mathematics? Well, SEG, it's the practice of using numbers, a mathematical object used to count, measure, and label. You can add, subtract, multiply, or even divide them. By doing this, one creates equations, and can solve, or predict various problems. It's this predictive method of mathematics that we use to determine probability, or "how likely" a certain event is to have occurred, or will occur. Perhaps one day mathematics will reach Australia, and you can see it for yourself.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Source: Israel Times.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/oded-gola ... -for-real/

If you have any evidence that the ossuary is genuine and not a fraud, let's see it. Or anything that verifies that this ossuary is linked to the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible.
Already addressed. See previous posts.
You didn't address these valid points:
The 'James ossuary,' one of the pieces at the center of Golan's forgery trial, had been hailed by some scholars as the first physical proof for the existence of Jesus (photo credit: So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?

The failure of a high-profile prosecution for antiquities fraud perpetuates the mystery of a find hailed as physical proof that Jesus existed
By MATTI FRIEDMAN 14 Mar 2012, 6:20 pm

Oded Golan, the Tel Aviv collector accused of forging biblical artifacts, was at the center of a seven-year trial that ended in his acquittal Wednesday. But he was never its star — that role belonged to the artifacts themselves.

While the significance of the exoneration for Golan himself is obvious, what it means for the antiquities is less clear.

The most famous of the artifacts is a stone box known as the “James ossuary,” exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum a decade ago and touted by some scholars as the first archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus. It bears an Aramaic inscription reading, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UP

Oded Golan was acquitted Wednesday of forging antiquities, but the judge did not rule whether the artifacts in question were genuine or fake (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

The prosecution claimed Golan had taken a genuine but common ossuary inscribed with the words “James, son of Joseph,” and added the words “brother of Jesus,” turning it into a find of global importance and vast worth. Then, according to the charge, he manufactured a fake patina — the thin film of grime that typically accumulates over centuries — and applied it to the new inscription to make it seem ancient.

He was also accused of manufacturing the ancient Hebrew inscription on a rectangular piece of stone known as the “Jehoash tablet,” which recounted a Temple renovation by a king of Jerusalem in the 9th century B.C.E. If genuine, the tablet is one of the most spectacular items ever to have surfaced in the world of biblical archaeology.

Golan was also accused of forging a string of other artifacts, including clay seal imprints, a lamp, and a ceramic decanter. He denied all of the accusations and was acquitted of all charges of forgery and fraud. The judge convicted him only of lesser offenses: possessing objects suspected of being stolen and selling antiquities without a license.

The case offered a glimpse at the murky world of biblical antiquities, where objects often surface not in excavations but on the black market, their origins unclear and their authenticity difficult or impossible to confirm. Golan said he had obtained most of the objects in question, including the ossuary, from dealers, most of them Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The thirst for objects that offer a physical link to the world of the Bible, and the sums involved — the Jehoash tablet was purportedly offered to the Israel Museum for $4 million, though no sale ever took place — would make objects of this type well worth a forger’s time.

The Golan case has had the effect of making collectors and experts more suspicious of forgeries, and museums have reviewed their collections looking for fakes. Because of the trial, the Israel Antiquities Authority wrote in its response to the verdict, “there has been an almost complete cessation of the publication of finds that come from the antiquities market without first knowing their exact place of discovery, and the trade in written documents and seals derived from illicit antiquities excavations has been halted almost entirely.”

In his ruling Wednesday, the judge went out of his way to say that the fact Golan had been found not guilty did not mean the artifacts were real.

His decision to clear Golan of forging the inscription on the James ossuary, he wrote, “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell.

“Moreover,” he wrote, “it was not proven in any way that the words ‘the brother of Jesus’ necessarily refer to the ‘Jesus’ who appears in Christian writings.”

This applies to all of the artifacts in question, he added several hundred pages later in the lengthy text of his decision: “All that has been established is that the tools and the science currently at the disposal of the experts who testified were not sufficient to prove the alleged forgeries beyond a reasonable doubt as is required by criminal law.”

In short, the case’s conclusion does not establish whether or not the James ossuary, the Jehoash tablet, or any of the artifacts in questions are historic discoveries or slick fakes.
What pertains to Oded Golan and the ossuary of James was already addressed -- see previous posts. Golan's other artifacts, and offenses are irrelevant to this topic. And, you copied the entire article, except for the final two paragraphs, which explain why the judge couldn't rule one way or the other on the artifacts. This is your second deceptive act in a desperate attempt to bolster your side.
"He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from distress" -- Prov. 21:23

searchengineguy
Posts: 474
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by searchengineguy »

I can see why you don't want to address those points.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 1483
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: The Ossuary of James

Post by Claire »

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Source: Israel Times.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/oded-gola ... -for-real/

If you have any evidence that the ossuary is genuine and not a fraud, let's see it. Or anything that verifies that this ossuary is linked to the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible.
Already addressed. See previous posts.
You didn't address these valid points:
The 'James ossuary,' one of the pieces at the center of Golan's forgery trial, had been hailed by some scholars as the first physical proof for the existence of Jesus (photo credit: So is the ‘James ossuary’ for real?

The failure of a high-profile prosecution for antiquities fraud perpetuates the mystery of a find hailed as physical proof that Jesus existed
By MATTI FRIEDMAN 14 Mar 2012, 6:20 pm

Oded Golan, the Tel Aviv collector accused of forging biblical artifacts, was at the center of a seven-year trial that ended in his acquittal Wednesday. But he was never its star — that role belonged to the artifacts themselves.

While the significance of the exoneration for Golan himself is obvious, what it means for the antiquities is less clear.

The most famous of the artifacts is a stone box known as the “James ossuary,” exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum a decade ago and touted by some scholars as the first archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus. It bears an Aramaic inscription reading, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories FREE SIGN UP

Oded Golan was acquitted Wednesday of forging antiquities, but the judge did not rule whether the artifacts in question were genuine or fake (photo credit: AP/Sebastian Scheiner)

The prosecution claimed Golan had taken a genuine but common ossuary inscribed with the words “James, son of Joseph,” and added the words “brother of Jesus,” turning it into a find of global importance and vast worth. Then, according to the charge, he manufactured a fake patina — the thin film of grime that typically accumulates over centuries — and applied it to the new inscription to make it seem ancient.

He was also accused of manufacturing the ancient Hebrew inscription on a rectangular piece of stone known as the “Jehoash tablet,” which recounted a Temple renovation by a king of Jerusalem in the 9th century B.C.E. If genuine, the tablet is one of the most spectacular items ever to have surfaced in the world of biblical archaeology.

Golan was also accused of forging a string of other artifacts, including clay seal imprints, a lamp, and a ceramic decanter. He denied all of the accusations and was acquitted of all charges of forgery and fraud. The judge convicted him only of lesser offenses: possessing objects suspected of being stolen and selling antiquities without a license.

The case offered a glimpse at the murky world of biblical antiquities, where objects often surface not in excavations but on the black market, their origins unclear and their authenticity difficult or impossible to confirm. Golan said he had obtained most of the objects in question, including the ossuary, from dealers, most of them Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.

The thirst for objects that offer a physical link to the world of the Bible, and the sums involved — the Jehoash tablet was purportedly offered to the Israel Museum for $4 million, though no sale ever took place — would make objects of this type well worth a forger’s time.

The Golan case has had the effect of making collectors and experts more suspicious of forgeries, and museums have reviewed their collections looking for fakes. Because of the trial, the Israel Antiquities Authority wrote in its response to the verdict, “there has been an almost complete cessation of the publication of finds that come from the antiquities market without first knowing their exact place of discovery, and the trade in written documents and seals derived from illicit antiquities excavations has been halted almost entirely.”

In his ruling Wednesday, the judge went out of his way to say that the fact Golan had been found not guilty did not mean the artifacts were real.

His decision to clear Golan of forging the inscription on the James ossuary, he wrote, “does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago. This will continue to be studied by scientists and archaeologists, and time will tell.

“Moreover,” he wrote, “it was not proven in any way that the words ‘the brother of Jesus’ necessarily refer to the ‘Jesus’ who appears in Christian writings.”

This applies to all of the artifacts in question, he added several hundred pages later in the lengthy text of his decision: “All that has been established is that the tools and the science currently at the disposal of the experts who testified were not sufficient to prove the alleged forgeries beyond a reasonable doubt as is required by criminal law.”

In short, the case’s conclusion does not establish whether or not the James ossuary, the Jehoash tablet, or any of the artifacts in questions are historic discoveries or slick fakes.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:What pertains to Oded Golan and the ossuary of James was already addressed -- see previous posts. Golan's other artifacts, and offenses are irrelevant to this topic. And, you copied the entire article, except for the final two paragraphs, which explain why the judge couldn't rule one way or the other on the artifacts. This is your second deceptive act in a desperate attempt to bolster your side.
I can see why you don't want to address those points.
What pertains to the topic in that article was already addressed — see previous posts.
"He that keepeth his mouth and his tongue, keepeth his soul from distress" -- Prov. 21:23

Post Reply