Museams warnd on biblical relic forgeries.

[Sacrificial Ram]

It looks like the inditement of the owner of the Ossurary of James was just the tip of an iceberg. Apparently, he is suspected as being part of a forgery ring that has been operating for over 20 years.

Personally, while I realise the motivation of greed is high, and the desire for people to have physical evidence to vindicate their faith is also high, messing
up things like this is just plain wrong on many levels. If accurate (and right now, I rather suspect it is accurate), then the messing up of the evidence chain of what actually happened will be difficult to straighten out.

This is going to make it twice as hard to convince me of anything with archelogical evidence, particuarly if it was a discovery of a signifigent artifact within the last 20 years or so.

[shunyadragon]

It looks like the inditement of the owner of the Ossurary of James was just the tip of an iceberg. Apparently, he is suspected as being part of a forgery ring that has been operating for over 20 years.

Personally, while I realise the motivation of greed is high, and the desire for people to have physical evidence to vindicate their faith is also high, messing
up things like this is just plain wrong on many levels. If accurate (and right now, I rather suspect it is accurate), then the messing up of the evidence chain of what actually happened will be difficult to straighten out.

This is going to make it twice as hard to convince me of anything with archelogical evidence, particuarly if it was a discovery of a signifigent artifact within the last 20 years or so.
It is true that monitary and religious motives are strong. One of the problems is that recently there has been nothing new or extraordinary has been found recently in the Holy Lands. The region has been scoured, some times viciously and carelessly, and over time there will likely be little potential for new earthshaking discoveries, but the desire for these discoveries grows.

[TheFiveSolas]

You seem to have your facts mixed up. The owner of the ossuary hasn't been indicted in spite of the fact that this "investigation" has been going on for, what, a year and a half? He was originally "suspected" of being part of a "forgery ring", but to date there is not one shred of evidence of an indictable offense. This despite the fact that Israel's policy regarding arrest and prosecution requires a much lower standard of proof and evidence than we have in the USA.

Secondly, as several scientists have pointed out, the IAA's original "scientific testing" which "proved" the ossuary to be a "fake" was severely flawed. A number of scientists are petitioning to have the ossuary retested by a larger group of independent, and more thoroughly experienced in the relevant fields, scientists.

[technomage]

Greetings, TheFiveSolas. (By the way, I absolutely love your avatar!)

You seem to have your facts mixed up. The owner of the ossuary hasn't been indicted in spite of the fact that this "investigation" has been going on for, what, a year and a half? He was originally "suspected" of being part of a "forgery ring", but to date there is not one shred of evidence of an indictable offense. This despite the fact that Israel's policy regarding arrest and prosecution requires a much lower standard of proof and evidence than we have in the USA.
The indictment was relatively recent: here's a news-story from Ha'aretz (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ernHKgtZi84J:www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/520856.html+golan+forgery+indictment&hl=en) (Cached in Google).

Secondly, as several scientists have pointed out, the IAA's original "scientific testing" which "proved" the ossuary to be a "fake" was severely flawed. A number of scientists are petitioning to have the ossuary retested by a larger group of independent, and more thoroughly experienced in the relevant fields, scientists.
Well, it's ... probably too late for that. One of the things that led to the indictment was the confession of the man who engraved the inscription. However, Golan is denying the charges, and I'll wait for the trial before making a decision.

Justin

[TheFiveSolas]

Hey Justin,

Thanks for the quick update and the link (which the original poster didn't include). I was unaware of the indictment when I wrote the above comments. I too will wait for the trial to see where the evidence leads us.

Thanks again!

[Sacrificial Ram]

Greetings, TheFiveSolas. (By the way, I absolutely love your avatar!)


The indictment was relatively recent: here's a news-story from Ha'aretz (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ernHKgtZi84J:www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/520856.html+golan+forgery+indictment&hl=en) (Cached in Google).


Well, it's ... probably too late for that. One of the things that led to the indictment was the confession of the man who engraved the inscription. However, Golan is denying the charges, and I'll wait for the trial before making a decision.

Justin I note that the museum reinvetigate the pommagrate, and found it to be fake too. That was supposedly the only artfact from Solomon's temple ever found. I know that things have to be fairly conclusive on the pommagrate for the museum which paid over 500K for it to announce it was a fake.


No matter how conclusive the evidence, there will be SOME people who will be claiming it is not a fake. They will come up with lots of reasons.. which become more and more bizarre as time goes by.

[NeilUnreal]

I'm always suspicious when unprovenanced archaeological artifacts seem too convenient to be true, and just "happen" to confirm some pet theory or belief. Most real archaeology is done from the masses of quotidian rubble sifted out of the level dirt. When something novel does turn up, it is often a "bolt from the blue," both in terms of data and theory, as in the case of the Kennewick man.

-Neil

[Sacrificial Ram]

I'm always suspicious when unprovenanced archaeological artifacts seem too convenient to be true, and just "happen" to confirm some pet theory or belief. Most real archaeology is done from the masses of quotidian rubble sifted out of the level dirt. When something novel does turn up, it is often a "bolt from the blue," both in terms of data and theory, as in the case of the Kennewick man.

-Neil
It is always fun for people to make discoveries that challenge the traditional thinking..

[TheFiveSolas]

I'm always suspicious when unprovenanced archaeological artifacts seem too convenient to be true, and just "happen" to confirm some pet theory or belief. Most real archaeology is done from the masses of quotidian rubble sifted out of the level dirt. When something novel does turn up, it is often a "bolt from the blue," both in terms of data and theory, as in the case of the Kennewick man.

-Neil

That hardly applies in this case since the real historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is hardly a "pet theory," but is rather a matter of historical fact according to the vast majority of historians.

[NeilUnreal]

That hardly applies in this case since the real historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth is hardly a "pet theory," but is rather a matter of historical fact according to the vast majority of historians.

I said pet theory or belief. In cases like this, there are a lot of Christians who forget Christ's comment to Thomas: "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

The issue is not whether Jesus lived or not, the issue is the improbable survival of one particular artifact.

-Neil

[Sacrificial Ram]

I said pet theory or belief. In cases like this, there are a lot of Christians who forget Christ's comment to Thomas: "blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."

The issue is not whether Jesus lived or not, the issue is the improbable survival of one particular artifact.

-Neil
If it is too good to be true, it usually isn't true.

[NeilUnreal]

If it is too good to be true, it usually isn't true.

Yep, just to make life fun it is true on rare occasion, but more often not so.

Usually people are fooled by this kind of things because they have “gotten a hold of the wrong end of the stick.” Last night, I thought of a less controversial example:

I’m certain that George Washington really existed, that he slept at a lot of inns, and that at least one of his sets of false teeth is still in existence. However, if I were thinking of buying an inn that was reported to have been slept in by George Washington, and on my inspection tour of the bathroom I just happened to find a set of false teeth with the initials G.W., I’d get a little suspicious.

The problem is not Washington, it’s the teeth…

-Neil

[TheFiveSolas]

Neil,
Thanks for the clarifications. I now understand what your motivation and intention were in writing your comment.

[learning]

It looks like the inditement of the owner of the Ossurary of James was just the tip of an iceberg. Apparently, he is suspected as being part of a forgery ring that has been operating for over 20 years.

Personally, while I realise the motivation of greed is high, and the desire for people to have physical evidence to vindicate their faith is also high, messing
up things like this is just plain wrong on many levels. If accurate (and right now, I rather suspect it is accurate), then the messing up of the evidence chain of what actually happened will be difficult to straighten out.

This is going to make it twice as hard to convince me of anything with archelogical evidence, particuarly if it was a discovery of a signifigent artifact within the last 20 years or so.

This guy may have had greed for his motive, but he apparently, from what I've read, didn't have a lot of knowledge about the Christian faith that this artifact was or was not supposed to be proof of (or evidence of Jesus' brother). I've read a bit about it in Biblical Arch mag and he didn't have the idea of the 'immaculate conception' right (he didn't realize it was Mary, not Jesus, who had this :) ) So though he or this artifact may have been a fake, he wasn't a Christian doing this. (Now whether this is all true or not, I don't know, that he or this thing was a fake or not) I've heard that the Biblical Arch mag questions whether the questioning of the 'addition' or 'faking' of the name (names) might be only a problem of some cleansers making something look new. So, one can question this both ways.

I've heard that some things that were known to be 'real' and 'authentic' are even 'questioned' now. Like whether the inscription 'House of David' on something really says or means 'House of David' and this is because some don't want to believe there was a David and a Kingdom of David, Kingdom of Israel, etc. I don't know, to me, this is pushing something too far.