Replies

I get BAR and although this is a re-hash of the ongoing disputes, there is ALOT more to this story than is in the popular press. Like many important issues in the scientific world, politics and pre-planned positions play a larger than life role in this controversy.

Don't put this one away yet folks - IMHO there are many more things to be looked at regarding the ossuary.

True lies.
One of the central themes of "Crack in the Cosmic Egg," a new age mystic book from the seventies, was that what we discover is dictated by what we want to find. We create reality by wishing it so. Of course, the fate of alchemy refutes this neatly, but, hey, it sounds to groovy to say.... "I love the Mommas and the Papas, and the..," oops. Sorry.

Anyway, the ossuary Jesus inscription is a phony as proved by the patina. All else is Magical realism, aka, true lies, aka, wishful thinking.

Flawed Geochemistry Used to Condemn James Inscription
by James A. Harrell
...It is clear from the statements of IAA committee members that they were strongly influenced by Ayalon's conclusions. This is unfortunate because there are three serious flaws in his reasoning:

First, ground calcite will not dissolve in hot water.

Second, undissolved calcite immersed in hot water will not exchange oxygen isotopes with the water and so will not have a d18O value reflecting the water's temperature.

Third, heating calcite in an oven will not change its d18O value.

Ayalon's interpretation is therefore based on flawed chemistry.

For Ayalon's hot-water scheme to work, the limestone would have to be dissolved in a hot acid-water solution and then the calcite crystallized by evaporating the solution. However, a coating made in this way would have an acid residue and so give away its origin. To test for this possibility, the inscription coating needs to be chemically analyzed, but this has not yet been done... The inscription coating also may not be pure calcite. The conclusion to be drawn from Ayalon's misinterpretation of his own data is that something else is causing the inscription coating to have very negative d18O values... One other point: Ayalon dismisses out of hand the one sample of inscription coating whose d18O value fell within the range of the ancient patina. He disregards this result because he attributes it to an accidental mixing of the ossuary limestone (with a d18O of +1 to –2) and the inscription coating, resulting in an intermediate d18O value. He may be correct in this, but he is showing his bias by not allowing for the other possibility: that the word Jesus (where the sample came from) is truly ancient... For the moment, all we can say is that the oxygen isotope results are equally consistent with two possible interpretations:

1. The inscription is a modern forgery that was coated with a faked patina; OR

2. The inscription is ancient but was cleaned in modern times with the coating produced either inadvertently as a result of cleaning or intentionally to disguise the cleaning.
Scholars say Jesus box may be genuine
Scientists say that this box dates from A.D. 63.
The Associated Press
Panelists, speaking in Atlanta at the annual joint conference of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature on Sunday, said authorities should examine the box more closely before passing judgment... James Harrell, a geologist at the University of Toledo and member of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, said his analysis of the inscription suggests the missing patina could simply be the result of overcleaning -- not forgery... Oded Golan, the collector who came forward with the ossuary in October 2002 and has since been accused of being the forger, said it had been "undoubtedly cleaned" while in his family's possession but did not know how. Panelists said that while oxygen isotope analysis found most of the inscription showed some sort of modern influence, the last part of it was consistent with the ancient patina -- specifically the part that names Jesus.
Internet Rumor Proves Groundless
by Hershel Shanks
Eric Meyers, a prominent archaeologist and former president of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR)... has posted an article on the internet entitled, "Well-known Israeli Archaeologist Casts More Doubt on Authenticity of James Ossuary." The Israeli archaeologist is not Meyers, who is American, but a source unnamed in the article who claims he "spotted [the ossuary] in a dealer's shop [in the mid-1990's] lacking the 'brother of Jesus' element in the inscription," as the subhead on Meyers' article reads... Meyers reports that "Sometime in 2001 my [unnamed] source [you will learn his name in the March/April 2004 BAR] alleges that [Oded] Golan through his lawyers offered for sale to The International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, the so-called James Ossuary, now in its revised and expanded form, for a sum of $2 million." That is, since it was seen in the mid-1990s without "the brother of Jesus," by 2001 it had acquired that addition... In receipt of such damning evidence, one would think that Meyers would do a little checking before placing this kind of charge on the internet. He could have at least called the International Christian Embassy to verify an unnamed source... Malcolm Hedding, the executive director of the International Christian Embassy, checked his records and found that he had been visited at 11:00 in the morning on November 28, 2002 [not 2001] by a man named Uri Ovnat, whose business card identified him, not as a lawyer, but as director of the International Marketing Development Enterprises, Ltd. in Ramat haSharon, Israel... In other words, the visit occurred not in 2001, before Lemaire had seen the ossuary, but after Lemaire's BAR article appeared in late October 2002... Uri Ovnat visited the International Christian Embassy with the magazine and a proposal that the Christian Embassy buy the ossuary, urging that this would be a major attraction for tourists. Hedding says that this is not the kind of thing the Christian Embassy does, and that was the end of it. Ovnat says no price was ever mentioned. Nor did Ovnat and Golan ever mention price, according to Ovnat. Hedding says his recollection is that a price of $2 million was mentioned by Ovnat. Ovnat says he did not approach anyone else... [W]e should not rush into print with unsourced rumors in an effort to denigrate Oded Golan. At least get the facts straight.

see also James Bone Box Updates on the BAR website.

Archaeology Odyssey
from Biblical Archaeology Review

Try the New and Improved SCF Index

Flawed Geochemistry Used to Condemn James Inscription
by James A. Harrell
...It is clear from the statements of IAA committee members that they were strongly influenced by Ayalon's conclusions. This is unfortunate because there are three serious flaws in his reasoning:

First, ground calcite will not dissolve in hot water.

Second, undissolved calcite immersed in hot water will not exchange oxygen isotopes with the water and so will not have a d18O value reflecting the water's temperature.

Third, heating calcite in an oven will not change its d18O value.

Ayalon's interpretation is therefore based on flawed chemistry.

For Ayalon's hot-water scheme to work, the limestone would have to be dissolved in a hot acid-water solution and then the calcite crystallized by evaporating the solution. However, a coating made in this way would have an acid residue and so give away its origin. To test for this possibility, the inscription coating needs to be chemically analyzed, but this has not yet been done... The inscription coating also may not be pure calcite. The conclusion to be drawn from Ayalon's misinterpretation of his own data is that something else is causing the inscription coating to have very negative d18O values... One other point: Ayalon dismisses out of hand the one sample of inscription coating whose d18O value fell within the range of the ancient patina. He disregards this result because he attributes it to an accidental mixing of the ossuary limestone (with a d18O of +1 to –2) and the inscription coating, resulting in an intermediate d18O value. He may be correct in this, but he is showing his bias by not allowing for the other possibility: that the word Jesus (where the sample came from) is truly ancient... For the moment, all we can say is that the oxygen isotope results are equally consistent with two possible interpretations:

1. The inscription is a modern forgery that was coated with a faked patina; OR

2. The inscription is ancient but was cleaned in modern times with the coating produced either inadvertently as a result of cleaning or intentionally to disguise the cleaning.
Scholars say Jesus box may be genuine
Scientists say that this box dates from A.D. 63.
The Associated Press
Panelists, speaking in Atlanta at the annual joint conference of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature on Sunday, said authorities should examine the box more closely before passing judgment... James Harrell, a geologist at the University of Toledo and member of the Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, said his analysis of the inscription suggests the missing patina could simply be the result of overcleaning -- not forgery... Oded Golan, the collector who came forward with the ossuary in October 2002 and has since been accused of being the forger, said it had been "undoubtedly cleaned" while in his family's possession but did not know how. Panelists said that while oxygen isotope analysis found most of the inscription showed some sort of modern influence, the last part of it was consistent with the ancient patina -- specifically the part that names Jesus.
Internet Rumor Proves Groundless
by Hershel Shanks
Eric Meyers, a prominent archaeologist and former president of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR)... has posted an article on the internet entitled, "Well-known Israeli Archaeologist Casts More Doubt on Authenticity of James Ossuary." The Israeli archaeologist is not Meyers, who is American, but a source unnamed in the article who claims he "spotted [the ossuary] in a dealer's shop [in the mid-1990's] lacking the 'brother of Jesus' element in the inscription," as the subhead on Meyers' article reads... Meyers reports that "Sometime in 2001 my [unnamed] source [you will learn his name in the March/April 2004 BAR] alleges that [Oded] Golan through his lawyers offered for sale to The International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, the so-called James Ossuary, now in its revised and expanded form, for a sum of $2 million." That is, since it was seen in the mid-1990s without "the brother of Jesus," by 2001 it had acquired that addition... In receipt of such damning evidence, one would think that Meyers would do a little checking before placing this kind of charge on the internet. He could have at least called the International Christian Embassy to verify an unnamed source... Malcolm Hedding, the executive director of the International Christian Embassy, checked his records and found that he had been visited at 11:00 in the morning on November 28, 2002 [not 2001] by a man named Uri Ovnat, whose business card identified him, not as a lawyer, but as director of the International Marketing Development Enterprises, Ltd. in Ramat haSharon, Israel... In other words, the visit occurred not in 2001, before Lemaire had seen the ossuary, but after Lemaire's BAR article appeared in late October 2002... Uri Ovnat visited the International Christian Embassy with the magazine and a proposal that the Christian Embassy buy the ossuary, urging that this would be a major attraction for tourists. Hedding says that this is not the kind of thing the Christian Embassy does, and that was the end of it. Ovnat says no price was ever mentioned. Nor did Ovnat and Golan ever mention price, according to Ovnat. Hedding says his recollection is that a price of $2 million was mentioned by Ovnat. Ovnat says he did not approach anyone else... [W]e should not rush into print with unsourced rumors in an effort to denigrate Oded Golan. At least get the facts straight.

see also James Bone Box Updates on the BAR website.

Archaeology Odyssey
from Biblical Archaeology Review

Just adding this to the GGG homepage, not sending a general distribution.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.

Just updating the GGG information, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·