The Skeptical Review Online - So Long, Dear John - Author Robert Turkel aka J.P. Holding

One of these days, perhaps Skeptic X will catch up with the rest of the world and come to the realization that fire was invented, the wheel is in common use, and it is a good idea to check up on articles, about topical events, that were written months ago.

Back on March 20, 2003, I wrote a review of James the Brother of Jesus by Shanks and Witherington. In that review, I noted that S and W had made a strong case for the authenticity of the James ossuary, but knowing that the jury was still out and further tests were in the offing, offered only a mild endorsement of the book and expressed a cautious optimism that authenticity would be borne out.

In the fundaliteralist world of Skeptic X, however, this cautious optimism became an "outspoken" defense. Well. If you can find it here, let me know where it went:

Much of the rest of the book details how the ossuary was discovered, and how it was accidentally broken in transit and then repaired. One chapter is devoted to answering objections to the ossuary's authenticity. Shanks and Witherington offer a solid case against the ossuary inscription being a modern forgery, as suggested by some non-paleographers who have never seen more than pictures of the ossuary, and a less compelling (but still powerful) case against the inscription being in more than one hand. Readers may wish to peruse the linked discussion for details, which I have reported in the forum.

It is always possible that some bolt from the sky will prove any artifact to be a fruad [sic] but so far, from the looks of things, Christ-mythers will be looking for careers in plumbing before too long on this one.

On December 3 of 2003, some 9 months after I typed that review, Skeptic X posted commentary on the above, headed by the drumbeaten irony-statement that he has "heard nothing more" about my view of the ossuary. Gee, someone needs to wipe X's face before the gravy drains onto his vest. Don't his fans keep him informed? In fact, I have offered several comments since that time on TheologyWeb, and have retained the same level of cautious optimism. Why? Well, to save X further drool, let's lay out the position as of 12/5/03.

This summer a report "released" by the Israeli Antiquities Authority claimed that the ossuary was a fake. Note that I put "released" in quotes. As of my last check, the IAA had not released the report itself; they had only released summary statements of their report, with little in the way of actual facts or arguments reported. A key finding let out was that chalk residue had been found on the inscription, supposedly pointing to a forgery. But lost on the shuffle is that the lead expert on this fudged a bit, admitting that the residue could have been due to a cleaning, not a forgery. To date we still await release of the report. I check Biblical Archaeology Review regularly for updates. The arguments remain to be set against one another and critically sifted. I am still waiting for that "bolt from the sky," and unlike skeptics who hopped all over the IAA report (and who had, out of the other sides of their mouths, criticized Christians for being too hasty in accepting the ossuary as authentic), I will wait until all information has been compiled and all arguments have been made before making a commitment. This sort of mental discipline is perhaps unfamiliar to Skeptics, which is why so many of them make meals of their feet on a regular basis. (A reader has alerted us to a recent article about experts disputing the committee's conclusions here.)

To start, here is the most recent set of comments I made on this subject, at the end of October on TheologyWeb. There are comments by other contributors as well.

At any rate, X quotes a few of the "conclusion" statements of the IAA -- most of them notably lacking in actual arguments. Let's look at where some actual arguments are actually made:

The committee concluded that "even if the ossuary is authentic, there is no reason to assume the bones of Jesus' brother were inside," and that the stone of the box was more typical of Cyprus and northern Syria than ancient Israel. This of course direcly contradicts the expert opinion of the Israeli Geological Survey experts who first examined the ossuary. So what is to be done? Nothing can be done, until the arguments by the two sources are critically compared. Witherington made the point that the dirt encrusted on the ossuary came from Silwan, where the ossuary was supposed to have ben cut by the IGS. It is not stated who on the committee made this claim, or what expertise they have in geology, or why they suppose the IGS got it wrong. There is no way to decide between these competing claims as yet. There is no indication that I have found that any geologists were part of the examination committee.

The committee's report said the inscription of the "James Ossuary" cut through the stone's patina, or natural fossilized sheen, and appeared to be in modern text, written by someone attempting to reproduce ancient biblical fonts. Both of these claims again are completely the opposite of earlier claims and tests. Conclusion? None is possible until the full report is released, which as of this date, has not been done. But Lemaire notes this damning point: "Strangely enough, the subcommittee on the ossuary inscription did not include any paleographer or epigrapher." In other words, no one who would have been competent to say anything about "modern text" vs. "ancient biblical fonts."

So do we have our "bolt from the sky"? Hardly. We have a flash and a bang, but nothing has been struck. We have a retort from Andrew Lemaire, who here calls the committee's report "deeply flawed". He notes several technical and other errors:

Another committee also examined the Joash inscription and declared in fake. But a technical error like this leads us to ask (as X himself would!) how carefully the job was done: ...the report refers to the “almost simultaneous discovery” of the two objects. The fact is that they were not “almost simultaneously discover[ed]”; they were almost simultaneously published—the ossuary inscription in BAR late in 2002 and the Yehoash inscription in early 2003. Their discoveries were decades apart.

Professor Amos Kloner is identified as an “archaeologist, [an] expert on burials and burial customs during the Second Temple period [in] Jerusalem.” He states that, to him, “the inscription looks new.” This is enough for him to conclude that it is a forgery. He also states that the forger worked “using contemporary examples.” He simply jumps to this negative conclusion without explanation or argument....Actually, the fact that an inscription looks new is not really a problem for an experienced epigrapher who sees many inscriptions, some in bad—very bad—condition and some in good—even very good—condition. For example, take the famous Tel Dan inscription, excavated by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran. It is in excellent condition and has great historical value (it contains an extra-Biblical mention of David). Using Professor Kloner’s criterion, we would have to declare it a forgery. (So much for the “it’s too good to be true” argument.) Indeed, Professor Giovanni Garbini has declared the Tel Dan inscription a forgery,1 as have members of the so-called Scandinavian school of Biblical studies.2 Does Professor Kloner agree with their judgment?

Here Lemaire addresses what may be in mind with the "fonts" point, from one Dr. Ilan: Turning to the area of her own expertise—ancient Hebrew and Aramaic names—Dr. Ilan detects a forgery in the misspellings she sees in the names on the ossuary. Both Joseph and James, she says, are misspelled. In the inscription Joseph is spelled YWSP. Dr. Ilan claims that “during the Second Temple period the name Joseph was always written as Jehoseph [YHWSP].” ...In her own book, however, she expresses herself differently: “During the Second Temple period the name YWSP was almost universally spelt YHWSP.”6 (Italics supplied.)...But even this is expressed too strongly. In more than 10 percent of other inscriptions, the James ossuary’s spelling YWSP occurs. For Dr. Ilan, however, the spelling of Joseph on the ossuary is “very rare and raises doubt about its authenticity.” This conclusion is not justified by the facts. We cannot say that a phenomenon is “very rare” when it occurs in more than 10 percent of cases. If Dr. Ilan’s argument were applied to all other inscriptions, more than 10 percent would be declared forgeries—or at least be considered suspicious...She errs just as badly, or worse, with the name James. It is spelled Y’QWB in the ossuary inscription. Dr. Ilan claims that “the spelling Y’QWB, with vav, was found on two ostraca at Masada but never on any papyrus or ossuary of the period.” But this is an error, one that is repeated in her book. If she had simply looked at the concordance in Rahmani’s catalogue, she would have seen that, out of the five occurrences of this name on ossuaries, three, a majority, are spelled Y’QWB, as on the James ossuary. The situation is precisely the opposite of what Dr. Ilan wrote in her committee statement (and published in her book). The spelling on the James ossuary is more frequent on ossuaries than the alternative spelling.

It is recommended that the reader consult Lemaire's article further for a look at some of the contradictory and peculiar statements made by committee members. If this had been done by NT scholars who favored authenticity, you can bet X would be the first off of the seat and into their faces.

Finally, in line with his usual smear tactics, X notes that Oded Golan, the owner of the ossuary, "has been arrested in Jerusalem for forging antiquities, one of which was the infamous ossuary." It's a good thing X is not one your judge and jury; apparently "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to anyone with a religious interest. In an article here Shanks retorted:

Let’s start with the investigation of Golan. Instead of collecting evidence and, if justified, charging Golan with a crime, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) and the police are trying to pressure him into confessing. After being interrogating at home he was called to the police station for further questioning. There they finger-printed him, mugged him and hand-cuffed him....There was no reason to put him in handcuffs; this was not a fugitive who might flee. Why did they handcuff him? I asked IAA chief investigator Amir Ganor. “To pressure him,” was the response....Next they sent a team of six people to his home one night at 8 in the evening and team—interrogated him for almost 30 hours—yes, through the night and into the following night. Then, with still no confession, they arrested him—but without charging him! (The newspapers, at least in America, didn’t report the fact that he had only been arrested for questioning). The police came to pick him up in the middle of the night...This was not a man they suspected of being violent or of fleeing. Why pick him up in the middle of the night? And why arrest him if they weren’t prepared to charge him?...After four days in jail in the Russian Compound, Golan was released—again without being charged with any offense. Even after this, stories in the US reported his arrest without reporting that he had been released and never charged. Everyone here quickly concluded he was guilty....Several weeks before, the IAA leaked to a newspaper that they had found half-forged seals in Golan’s workroom. The story spread like wildfire from one newspaper to another. The Jerusalem Post recently reported that “an elaborate antiquities forgery lab was found in his home.”..If true, the half-forged seals and the forgery lab would be powerful evidence against Golan. So why haven’t they released pictures of these half-forged seals and forgery equipment? In the US prosecutors might say they didn’t release pictures of this evidence because they didn’t want to prejudice the jury against the defendant....But in Israel there are no juries. So if they have the evidence, why haven’t they charged Golan with a crime? All they have done is smear him in the newspapers. This is no way to process a serious criminal case.

I wonder if X, as an American citizen, would put up with this kind of treatment in his own home.

X closes with some offers to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge. We close with an offer for him to get his tush off the chair and stop using popular news items as final declarative sources. It has already embarrassed him more than once.

And now it's time for an update. These days Skeptics are playing the role of fundamentalists, doing exactly what they told us not to do where the James ossuary is concerned, and that is, reaching a conclusion and ending the matter. Odd is it not, how patience is our virtue and not theirs. In the meantime, we have been patiently watching Biblical Archaeology Review for news, and that news is, that the case against authenticity is starting to implode. Let me sum up my position for the drooling expectants, though -- it hasn't changed. I'm still waiting for that bolt from the sky, and still not pretending that we have 100% assurance. Meanwhile, here's the latest from the folks at BAR.

Despite Skeptics making hash over his arrest, the owner of the ossuary, Oded Golan, has not been convicted on anything yet and was recently charged with "obstructing legal procedure." According to Golan’s lawyer, Lior Bringer, Golan is accused of attempting to influence a prosecution witness, an Egyptian jeweler who some say might have engraved the forged inscription. Golan denies this, claiming the inscription is not forged. Golan says the Egyptian has been his friend for more than 15 years and has even stayed at Golan’s apartment. Bringer told BAR that Golan is under house arrest at his parents’ apartment and is not allowed to speak to any of the witnesses in his upcoming trial.

An indictment last year charging Golen (and many others) with forgery (see here) contradicts the IAA claims that the WHOLE inscription was forged, claiming that only the "brother of Jesus" part was forged.

Other experts, including those from the Israeli Geological Survey, the Royal Ontario Museum, stand by their examinations and declarations that the ossuary inscription is not forged. James Harrell, an expert in archaeological stone at the University of Toledo, found the work of the IAA examiners "deeply flawed". An IAA spokesman responded by calling Harrell a "charlatan." A fuller account of what Harrell decided is found here:

Dr. Harrell, in an interview this week, said that after examining the available scientific data, he is certain that the IAA's evaluation was flawed.

"Basically what I'm saying is that the scientific evidence is inconclusive. But that is substantial because the IAA, in their report, claim the inscription is a forgery - no ifs, ands, or buts about it."

Dr. Harrell, who has taught at UT for 25 years, said none of the data used in the IAA's report can justify the agency's outright rejection of the box's authenticity.

"It may be that they're ultimately right in their conclusion, but if so it would be for the wrong reasons," Dr. Harrell said. "I haven't made my mind up yet as to whether I think it's authentic or not, but the balance is in favor of authenticity."

Dr. Harrell has not examined the ossuary itself, but, at the request of Dr. Shanks, has studied the data released by Israeli authorities.

An expert on ancient stones, especially Middle Eastern stones, Dr. Harrell has studied the chemical composition of the brown patina, or thin coating, that covers most of the limestone box.

He said it is obvious that somebody cleaned the ossuary, possibly with a metallic pad, since it was purchased more than 30 years ago by its current owner, Ogded Golan, an Israeli antiquities dealer who reportedly tried to sell the ossuary for $2 million.

"Whenever inscribed objects are found, perhaps in illicit excavations, they're cleaned up and made presentable," Dr. Harrell said. "An archaeologist would never do that, but an antiquities dealer would."

Mr. Golan has been vague about where he got the ossuary, but Dr. Harrell said the owner told him at a conference in Atlanta last year that he bought the box in Jerusalem. Its importance was not discovered, however, until Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne translated the Aramaic in April, 2002.

The scrubbing altered the chemical composition of the patina, but the coating on the word "Jesus" is the same as the overall patina on the limestone, Dr. Harrell said.

"When you write the inscription, Jesus is the last word you put on there. And if that is, by all indications, ancient and authentic - and even the IAA says that word is ancient - then the rest of the inscription had to have been written first," he said...

On scientific standards alone, the IAA report was amateurish, Dr. Harrell said.

"It was a rush job, it was not well written, there were no reasons given for conclusions, no mention of dissenting views," he said. "It was just badly done."

Perhaps, he said, the Israeli government was trying to make an example of Mr. Golan to discourage people from selling archaeological treasures - even though Mr. Golan's purchase was legal at the time.

Dr. Harrell said he thinks Israeli authorities were unprepared for a serious scientific study of the ossuary.

"What I think happened is that they threw this committee together very quickly. It's like a road accident: The first people on the scene are not always the best to help. That's exactly what happened. I think there will be another, better-qualified committee to study it and issue a new report."

Dr. Harrell said Dr. Shanks has asked him if he would consider organizing such a blue-ribbon panel.

"I sort of welcome the opportunity, and in a way I don't," Dr. Harrell said. "It's such a controversial issue. You can get caught up with it. Not everybody's going to be happy with what you do, no matter what your conclusion."

In addition, one member of the IAA committee, Ronny Reich, has changed his mind and has now declared that he thinks the inscription is authentic. (BAR, May/June 2005, pp. 46, 57).

Our conclusion? The Skeptics need to follow our example -- sit down, shut up, and let the experts do their jobs.

# # # # # #

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for criticism, comment, research, and educational purposes. The Skeptical Review is neither endorsed nor sponsored by the author(s) of the foregoing article. The Skeptical Review is owned by Skepticism Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.