Some experts who are skeptical regarding Andre Lemaire's "James ossuary" hypothesis
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
are skeptical regarding Andre Lemaire's "James ossuary"
hypothesis. Lemaire's hypothesis was recently published
in the Biblical Archaeology Review.
- - - - - -
Dr. Baruch Halpern, Penn State University Middle Eastern
expert, a professor of Ancient History and Religious Studies:
"I think it's a forgery myself ... This is a very carefully
executed inscription. It's the kind of script you'd get if
you were copying out of a handbook. Real scribes don't
necessarily execute as well. ... I'd like to see what trace
elements of chemicals are inside [the letters] .. If there's
any iron I'd be very suspicious. A modern forger using
a pen knife would not surprise me. But if it's nothing but
copper, more power to them."
---
Editorial Insert:
See scholar Lupia's comments below for details on
elements found - there was iron (and a few other ele-
ments) and there was no copper.
End Editorial Insert
---
- - - - - -
Gideon Avni, former chief archaeologist of Jerusalem:
(paraphrase) Avni said patina could be faked and that
he has come across two skilled forgeries of inscriptions,
intended to boost the value of ossuaries.
(quote) "If such an ossuary had been found in a clean
context, many questions would have been answered
on the spot ... But we don't have this evidence, unfor-
tunately."
- - - - - -
Dr. Rochelle I. Altman, BA - English/Philosophy (Elizabeth-
town College), PhD. - Medieval English (Arizona State Uni-
versity), additional courses in the US, France, Greece, and
Israel: palaeography, calligraphy, system design, system
analysis, book binding, typography, typesetting, and script
design, co-coordinator of IOUDAIOS-L, a virtual community
of scholars engaged in on-line discussion of Judaism in the
Greco-Roman world, an expert on scripts and an historian
of writing systems:
"The inscription on the 'James' ossuary is anomalous.
First it was written by two different people. Second, the
scripts are from two different social strata. Third, the
first script is a formal inscriptional cursive with added
wedges; the second script is partly a commercial cursive
and partly archaic cursive. Fourth, it has been gone over
by two different carvers of two different levels of compe-
tence.
... The inscription has been translated as 'Jacob son of
Joseph brother of Joshua.' The two parts are not related;
the differences between them are striking.
... If the entire inscription on the ossuary is genuine, then
somebody has to explain why there are two hands; two dif-
ferent scripts; two different social strata, two different levels
of execution, two different levels of literacy, and two differ-
ent carvers."
- - - - - -
John Lupia, editor of the Roman Catholic News and a scholar
with degrees in art history, biblical studies and archeology:
---
Enlargement of inscription on "James ossuary"
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20021021/jesus_zoom.html
---
"The enlargement clearly shows the limestone erosion
caused by chemoautotrophic nitrifying bacteria such
as thiothrix, a sulfide-oxidizing mixotrophic bacteria,
evident throughout the surface of the limestone ex-
cept where the inscription was carved. This suggests
a later date for the epigraphic inscription since it too
would have undergone the same erosive process,
which it has not.
If the inscription were the same age as the stone it too
should have erosion that occluded consistently and
consequently resulted in eroding the inscription. No
pitting or erosion is found anywhere along the field of
the inscription. By "field of the inscription" is meant
the interior of the letters and its ridges to the surface,
not the surrounding surface area.
... Perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier but I
assumed everyone knew that patina cannot be cleaned
off limestone. Patina can also easily be forged on
limestone.
According to BAR (BAR 28:6 (November/December
2002), p.29): the analysis performed by SEM (Scanning
Electron Microscope) equipped with EDS (Electron
Dispersive Spectrometer):
The patina is composed mainly of CaCO3 (93%) and
contains Si -5.0%; Al -0.7%; Fe -0.3%; P -0.4% and Mg
-0.2%
---
Editorial Insert:
Here's the breakdown on those elements ...
CaCO3 (Calcite - Calcareous Spar) 93%
Si (Silicon) 5.0%
Al (Aluminum) 0.7%
Fe (Iron) 0.3%
P (Phosphurus) 0.4%
Mg (Magnesium) 0.2%
Reference to Dr. Baruch Halpern's statement above:
"... if there's any iron I'd be very suspicious. A modern
forger using a pen knife would not surprise me. But if
it's nothing but copper, more power to them."
So, there is iron and there's no copper, thereby lending
weight to the suspicions that forgery is involved, per Dr.
Baruch Halpern's statement.
End Editorial Insert
---
... Is it possible to cause the deposition of a naturally
formed patina within a few years in some artificial way?
Actually, it is possible to cause a patina to be formed
on the surface of a limestone object by burying it in
a wet salty soil impregnated specially with some sol-
uble iron salts, then exposing it to the atmosphere for
a few weeks and repeating this process for several
times.
The patina in this case, however, is not very crystalline
and not so adherent to the stone as the patina which
is formed slowly during hundreds or thousands of
years. Moreover, this quick efflorescence of the salts
causes the surface of the object to disintegrate and
the patina cracks out so easily within a period not ex-
ceeding two years in any way.
... When I first saw digital photographs of the so-called
James Ossuary I immediately knew the inscription was
fake without giving a paleographic analysis for two rea-
sons: biovermiculation and patina.
Biovermiculation is limestone erosion and dissolution
caused by bacteria over time in the form of pitting and
etching. The ossuary had plenty except in and around
the area of the inscription. This is not normal. The pa-
tina consisted of the appropriate minerals but it was
reported to have been cleaned off the inscription. This
is impossible since patina cannot be cleaned off lime-
stone with any solvent or cleanser since it is essentially
baked on glass. It is possible to forge patina but when
it is it cracks off. This appears to be what happened
with ossuary.
With these observations I immediately knew the inscrip-
tion could not be authentic regardless of what any pale-
ographer might say in favor of it since the physical as-
pects are prima facia evidence of forgery."
- - - - - -
Robert Eisenman, author of "James the Brother of
Jesus" (Penguin, 1998) and a professor of Middle
East religions and archeology at Cal State Long Beach:
"Why do I find this discovery suspicious? Aside from
its sudden miraculous appearance, no confirmed prov-
enance -- that is, where it was found and where it has
been all these years (from the photographic evidence
it seems in remarkably good shape) -- and no authenti-
cated chain of custody or transmission, there is the
nature of the inscription itself.
... This inscription seems pointed not at an ancient
audience ... but at a modern one. ... the numerous
contemporary sources I have already referred to
know the location of James' burial site. ... No source,
however, mentions an ossuary. Our creative artificers
presumably never read any of these sources (nor
beyond the first few chapters of my book) or they
would have known better.
... I am the author of JAMES THE BROTHER OF
JESUS. I don't need any proof of James' existence.
I'm among the convinced. What I said was that in the
Introduction to my book on page xxiii, for those who
wonder about the existence of James and question
the fact of his brothers, they should know that the
existence or historicity of Jesus is a shakey thing.
People have been arguing about this for centuries
and there is no consensus on the issue. This is what
is meant by the Quest for the Historical Jesus. No
one agrees.
The question is not really about James. James we
can prove from numerous external sources. The
question is rather about Jesus.
For those who doubt, perhaps the best proof of his
existence is the fact of his brother James or the fact
that he had a brother James. This is what I said.
Therefore, I told him, I am perhaps the last person
in the world to want this ossuary to be untrue. I have
written the book on it. But despite this, I find it worri-
some. I have to question its authenticity.
It's too pat. Too perfect. James was so well known
in his time that people would not have felt it necessary
to tie on the phrase 'brother of Jesus'. ..."
- - -
Nachum Applbaum, B.A. (Biblical Archaeology; Computers
and Archaeology), the Dinur Center for Research in Jewish
History, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus,
Jerusalem, Israel:
(quotes from a post to "ioudaios" on Oct. 29, 2002)
... Lets just remember that the so called "James Ossuary"
is part of a private collection from a "unknown" source!
... All the PR that it is receiving is problematic. I wish to
remind you the inscribed pomegranate - and the recent
published (in BAR) "Royal stamps" are also part of this
group - these objects have one thing in common - they
are stolen or fake.
I would regard all as fakes until their origin is clearly re-
vealed and studied - if they are not fake someone stole
them and knows where they came from.
As much as we all want to 'enjoy' them we should re-
member the price we will all be paying because of the
PR they receive - the black market of antiquities will
again be flooded with objects - larger sums of money
will be changing hands - dealers will be making fat profits
and a few more sites in the near east will be robbed by
those who hope some dealer will buy what they steal
and craftsmen who produce the fakes will be back at
work again.
The market value of these objects grow because of
this PR - once BAR puts them on its front page and SBL
runs a special session - the public excepts them as they
are.
The Ossuary is probably one of the many that have
been stolen over the years - the inscription may or may
not be real - it is so easy to fake the inscription - anyone
after an introduction class to epigraphy could do a great
job - just leave the thing a few years in a damp cellar and
you got yourself a priceless object. Find a way to bring
it to the attention of BAR and you hit the jackpot!
So I would suggest that we all be very careful with this
object and all the other that come from such "collections".
We should refer to all of them as fakes until proven dif-
ferent. The dealers will then be sure to supply proper
information on the objects origin and maybe the sites
will be properly excavated and we will all gain proper
information."
- - - - - -
Glenn Schwartz, archaeologist at Johns Hopkins University
in Baltimore:
"When something appears out of nowhere, and we don't
know what place it comes from, there are all sorts of pos-
sibilities - that it may not be ancient, or that it may be an-
cient and modified more recently."
(paraphrase) Schwartz said that the names James, Joseph
and Jesus were relatively common at the time.
- - - - - -
~~~
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive Liberty,
Openness, Verity, Enlightenment, & Rationality)
http://www.ghg.net/phf
~~~