Name:sadinoel •
Title: James Ossuary Forgery •
Date posted: 04/27/07 21:18
Q: Let's see... Oded Golan has Krumbein backing him up. The prosectuion has too many unbiased experts for me to bother counting.
Read and learn people. Golan is a crook and the James ossuary is a forgery. This is NOT JESUS TOMB and as P.T. Barnum says...
A SUCKER IS BORN EVERY MINUTE.
Final Report Of The Examining Committees For the Yehoash Inscription and James Ossuary
Uzi Dahari
To: Shuka Dorfman, Director-General - Israel Antiquities Authority
The Committees Establishment and Selection of Members
Word of the almost simultaneously discovery of the bone box known as the “James Ossuary” and the Yehoash inscription, from an unknown source (not from an methodical excavation), together with the emotions raised by the finds and extensive public interest amongst Jews and Christians, obliged the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), the body responsible for all archaeological activities in Israel, to take action, to examine the finds and formulate a position on the subject. The IAA agreed to a short exhibit of the ossuary in Canada.
Numerous articles, all appearing within a short period of time, either confirm or deny the authenticity of the items. If the pieces are authentic (particularly the Yehoash inscription), then they are of great scientific value. The IAA was thus bound to do everything possible to arrive at the truth and present its conclusions.
After consulting with senior IAA advisors, IAA Director-General, Mr. Shuka Dorfman resolved to make every possible effort to examine the genuineness of the two finds. He then consulted scholars from various disciplines at the IAA and others, and set up two expert committees to examine the items from a scientific aspect and reach a conclusion regarding their authenticity. One committee was designated as the Writing and Content Committee and would use its knowledge of epigraphy and paleography to investigate whether the material content and language used are compatible with the Hebrew and Aramaic of the designated period. The second committee, the Materials and Patina Committee was to examine the substance of the materials, composition of the patina, additional materials present and perform any and every possible examination, including a morphological study of the items.
The Writing and Content Committee was comprised of two subcommittees – whose members were authorities on the First Temple period – archaeologists, linguists, historians, paleographers, epigraphers who would study the Yehoash inscription. The second subcommittee, consisting of archaeologists, Second Temple period linguistics scholars, who would study the ossuary. The Writing and Content Committee would, if needed, consult with Prof. Y. Naveh, an authority on ancient Hebrew writing of international repute, and with Dr. L.Y. Rahmani, an authority on ossuaries who had collected and published a vast amount of information on the subject.
The Materials Committee consisted of a geologist expert appointed by Dr. Amos Bein, Director of the Geological Survey of Israel, and who guaranteed his institute’s backing and scientific assistance (in spite of the conclusion reached earlier by two of the Geological Survey’s geologists), a petrograph expert, C14 researcher, and antiquities conservators with experience in ancient patina.
A great deal of attention was devoted to the choice of committee members. One consideration was the degree of involvement of each scholar in earlier research on the two items. Director-General Dorfman decided on a mix of committee members. The most suitable experts were chosen even if they had, in the past, expressed an opinion on the subject, as well as top scholars who had never been involved with the authenticity question.
The committee members were given specific guidelines: to arrive at the truth based on pure research only – without taking into account any other related factors regarding the collector, current gossip, rumors, or prejudices. Each scholar would work in his own discipline. The Writing and Content Committee members would each work alone during the early stages would later meet jointly. The Materials Committee members together photographed and took samples of the material so that the exact location and size of the sample would be precisely documented.
At the opening committee meeting, each member was given a file containing most of the published research and professional material gleaned from the internet, plus a large amount of information from the collector.
Following are the names and institutional affiliations of the committee members
The Writing Committee
Dr. Gideon Avni – Director of the Excavations and Survey Department, Israel Antiquities Authority, Committee Chairman.
Prof. Shmuel Ahituv – Ben Gurion University – Expert on Ancient Hebrew inscriptions.
Dr. Tal Ilan – Bar Ilan University – Historian, expert on the Hebrew and Aramaic names in the Second Temple period.
Dr. Esther Eshel – Bar Ilan University – expert on the history and development of Hebrew script.
Prof. Avigdor Horowitz – Ben Gurion University – world renown expert on ancient middle eastern languages.
Dr. Hagai Misgav – Hebrew University – expert on ancient Hebrew script and inscriptions.
Prof. Amos Kloner – Bar Ilan University – archaeologist, expert on burials and burial customs during Second Temple period Jerusalem.
Prof. Roni Reich – Haifa University – archaeologist, expert on First and Second Temple periods.
The Materials Committee
Dr. Uzi Dahari – Deputy Director, Israel Antiquities Authority, Committee Chairman.
Prof. Yuval Goren – Tel Aviv University – archaeologist and expert on petrography and identification of materials and sources.
Dr. Avner Ayalon – Geological Survey of Israel – geologist, expert on identification of materials through the study of isotopes in rock.
Dr. Elisabetta Boaretto – Weizmann Institute of Science – C14 expert.
Ms. Orna Cohen – expert conservator, specialization in identification and restoration of ancient patina.
Mr. Jacques Neguer – Israel Antiquities Authority – expert on antiquities conservation and restoration.
Each committee member received an official appointment from the IAA Director General (Appendix 1) .
Dr. Avner Ayalon received an additional appointment from Dr. Amos Bein, Director of the Geological Survey of Israel, as the authority for the instruments to be used in the examinations and based on his experience in geochemical applications and petrography identification and classification of materials (Appendix 2).
All the committee members participated on a completely voluntary basis.
The Committees Work
At the first meeting of the two committees, on Wednesday, 26 March, 2003, Mr. Dorfman presented the members with their aims - “to determine the authenticity of the two items. These determinations will be of dramatic significance both from an ideological and financial aspect” (Appendix 3 – minutes of the meeting). The committee chairmen then met with their members, formulated work rules and a time schedule (Appendix 4 – letter sent by Dr .Avni to the Writing Committee); Appendix 5 – protocol from materials committee’s first meeting, setting forth directions for research).
A room in the IAA offices was specially prepared to house the two items. Extremely powerful lighting, ultra-violet light, an illuminated magnifying lens, microscope and binoculars were provided. The room was available to committee members at any time. They received digital close-ups of the two inscriptions. Members of the Materials Committee naturally visited more than the others, take samples and close-ups. Moreover, the members sampled patina from other ossuaries and inscriptions in the IAA storerooms for comparison.
Each committee member was given up to three months to submit a final report summarizing his/her opinion and reasons for their conclusions.
The Materials Committee met for two additional meetings to exchange ideas and discuss research directions.
Three committee members were asked to prepare, in addition to their written report, a visual presentation for the Minister of Education, the IAA Director-General and the other committee members. Jacques Neguer prepared a visual presentation of the objects morphology; Yuval Goren a presentation of the petrographic composition of the materials and patina; Avner Ayalon a presentation of his geological research.
The research was conducted at the regular work place of each member, and on his/her own time.
Abstracts of Findings: Writing Committee – The Yehoash Inscription
Prof. Shmuel Ahituv (Appendix 6A)
The inscription was written by a speaker of modern Hebrew who borrowed segments from the original sources, composed a text that seemed biblical to him/her but failed. Therefore, the text is a forgery.
Prof. Avigdor Horowitz (Apprendix 6B)
The Yehoash inscription appears to be a combination of elements collected from various sources and pasted together … each element attests to a lack of understanding of ninth century BCE Hebrew. All the elements together clearly prove that the text is a forgery.
Dr. Hagai Misgav (Appendix 6C)
From the paleographic aspect, it appears that the inscription was written by someone not living in the First Temple times, but who wrote according to samples from that period. In other words, the inscription does not appear authentic.
Prof. Roni Reich (Appendix 6D and 6D1
It appeared to me at first that the inscription was authentic, as I wrote in my report. For one reason, it was difficult for me to believe that a forger (or group of forgers) could be found that would be expert in all aspects of the inscription… and could produce such an object. But I was convinced, in the end, that it is a forgery after being shown the committee’s data and material.
The Ossuary Inscription Committee
Prof. Amos Kloner (Appendix 6E)
It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different period than its original installation. The inscription appears new. The writer tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using samples from contemporaneous inscriptions.
Dr. Tal Ilan (Appendix 6F)
Even if the ossuary is authentic, there is no reason to assume that the deceased was actually the brother of Jesus. But I am of the opinion that the inscription is a forgery.
Prof. Roni Reich (Appendix 6D and 6D1
The inscription does not exhibit a combination of configurational or substantial effects that would imply forgery. But I was convinced that the inscription is a forgery when presented with the findings by the Materials Committee.
Dr. Esther Eshel (Appendix 6G)
From my examination of the inscription and the data I received, it appears to me quite clear that the inscription is not authentic, and was added at a much later date (possible in two stages).
The Materials Committee
Jacques Neguer (Appendix 6I)
The ossuary is authentic. Its inscription is a forgery. All the various scratches on the ossuary are coated in the original patina and only the inscription and its immediate surroundings are coated with an artificial “patina’-like material of round crystalline granules. The inscription cuts through the original patina and appears to have been written by two different writers using different tools.
Orna Cohen
Ossuary: The first part of the inscription is new, cuts through the original patina and is coated with a granular patina that appears to have been produced from chalk dust mixed with water and spread on the inscription. The end of the inscription “brother of Jesus” appears authentic, in some places there seems to be remains of old patina, but in order to produce a uniform effect, this too was spread with the same granular substance.
Inscription: The “patina” on the inscription side was dissolved in water and therefore looks like earth rather than patina. When the letters were cleaned, the manner of inscription was exposed. The technique appears new and does not match the original wear on the stone. The manner in which the letters were scratched does not resemble any form of ancient stone inscription.
In summary, both inscriptions are false.
Prof. Yoval Goren (Appendix 6J)
Ossuary: The ossuary itself is authentic based on the accumulation of patina and varnish (varnish = patina from a biological source).
The inscription was inscribed or cleaned in a modern period. Its coating is not a result of nature, and was probably accomplished by crumbling and dissolving chalk (or perhaps the powder falling from the engraving process) in hot water and spilling the suspension on the inscription and surrounding area in order to blur the freshly carved inscription.
Inscription: The stone is greywake, an exotic stone for Israel, originating in north Syria or western Cyprus.
The original silicate patina exists on the reverse side of the tablet. hard and firmly attached to the stone. The engraved letters did not appear to have undergone any corrosive process as would be expected from an ancient inscription.
The inscription coating has a different composition than that of the patina on the back of the stone, and appears to be an artificial mixture of clay, crumbled chalk, carbon, and microscopic granules of inert metal. It appears that this mixture was dissolved in hot water before being spread on the inscribed side, after which the stone was heated to a temperature of no higher than 4000C in order to harden the new coating and give it the appearance of patina.
Method: The “patinization” is similar in both cases but on the ossuary, chalk powder only was used, and on the Yehoash inscription a mixture of clay or red soil, chalk powder, carbon and metal granules.
Conclusions: The inscriptions on both items are forged and date to modern times.
Composition of Isotopes In Oxygen In The Ossuary and the Yehoash Inscription
Dr. Avner Ayalon (Appendix 6K)
Oxygen possesses three isotopes: oxygen 16, 17, 18. When atmospheric conditions (moisture and temperature) vary, the relationship between these isotopes changes, especially between oxygen 16 and 18 (the amount of oxygen 17 decreases greatly and is difficult to measure). I sampled the patina of the Yehoash inscription and the original patina in various places on the ossuary distant from the inscription and for comparison, took samples from the surface and inside the letters inscribed on other ossuaries. The result is clear: patina samples from the other ossuaries and from the James Ossuary away from the letters fall within the acceptable isotope range for patina accumulation in the Jerusalem area within the last three thousand years and patina samples from the letters of the James Ossuary and the patina of the Yehoash inscription letters fall out of this range, showing that the letters patina could not have formed within the Jerusalem area’s climatic conditions.
“Patina” of such an isotope composition was probably created from a mixture of materials and water heated to a temperature that does not exist in our area.
Therefore, I conclude that “patina” in the Yehoash the ossuary letters is forged (details of the stages of the Materials Committee’s work in the presentation in Appendix 10).
Dr. Elisabetta Boaretto (Appendis 6L)
The ossuary patina does not contain material that can be sampled for C14, and is thus irrelevant for dating by this method.
The inscription patina contains very small, but adequate quantities of carbonates that can be tested in an accelerator. Such a sample was taken by the Israel Museum and sent to Florida for examination. Due to the small quantity of material, carbon was collected from several places on the inscription stone so that the sample is not a representative one, but rather an average of the material sources. The resulting date received (after calibration) is 390 – 200 BCE. I didn’t collect any material for further analysis because I don’t believe such an analysis to be significant toward determining authenticity, for the following reasons: A) the test for dating the carbon is irrelevant since ancient carbon can be added to the falsified material; b. the objects, since their discovery, have passed through many different places without any documentation. Exposure of he objects to modern pollutants can affect results of dating analyses.
Based on the above, I conclude that no relevance can be placed on a date received from C14 dating of the Yehoash inscription authenticity.
Summary
On June 15, 2003, the committees met, first separately, and then jointly, in order to arrive at a collective conclusion. I presented the results of the Writing Committee to the Materials Committee and results of the Materials Committee to the Writing Committee.
The two committees then joined in the Director-General’s office. (Appendix 7 – Protocol of Concluding Session) where a discussion took place to which the collector, Mr. Oded Golan was invited (in response to the request of Mr. Golan’s lawyer) to present his argument and position on the matter of the two items. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr .Golan was asked a number of questions by the committee members.
At the conclusion of deliberations, the committee members summarized the results of their research and wrote an abstract of their findings (Appendices 8 and 9), as follows: “We, members of the committee for examination of the content and script in the Yehoash inscription and the James Ossuary (James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” conclude that to the best of our scientific judgement:
A) the Yehoash inscription is a forgery
B) The James Ossuary inscription is a forgery
We, the committee members for examination of the materials of the Yehoash inscription and the James Ossuary conclude that the patina on both items is forged and significantly varies from the original patina on the items.
Respectfully,
Dr. Uzi Dahari
Deputy Director and
Chairman of the Materials Committee and
Committees Coordinator
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/27/07 22:11
A: It is interesting that the list of possible witnesses below [ well known writers ] who lived during the approximate time or within the first century were reportedly absent about the crucifixion. Could this mean in all probability there was no tomb or crucifixion? A silence of history on the foundation of Christianity circa 6 b.c.e. to 100 c.e.?
Josephus, Tacitus, Pausanias, Philo, Justus Tiberias, Florus Lucius,
Seneca, Apollonius, Quintus Curtius, Aulus Gellius, Quintilian,
Pliny the Elder, Arrian, Lucanus, Dio Chrysostom, Petronius Epictetus,
Columella, Dion Pruseus, Hermongones Silius, Valerius Flaccus,
Damis, Paterculus, Suetonius, Statius, Favorinus, Juvenal, Ptolemy,
Lysias, Martial, Appian, Pomponius, Persius, Phlegon, Plutarch
Appion of Alexandria, Phaeaedrus, Theon of Smyrna, Lucian
Pliny the Younger, Valerius Maximus.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/27/07 23:18
A: From what I read the James ossuary was stolen in 1980 when the tomb was first opened.Then it was sold to a private collector.Someone saw the inscription on the ossuary and after asking some questions found out that it was one of ten taken from a tomb.It was traced to a warehouse where the other nine were found.The rest is history in the making.I believe they are prosecuting the thief and the person who had it in his possession.The whole incident is in the book,The Jesus Family Tomb.
Name:OneGod •
Date: 04/28/07 14:52
A: Who cares if the James ossuary is fake or authentic. It is true that if it is authentic and linked to the Talpiot tomb it makes for a stronger case but it doesn't really make or break the case either way. Even without the James ossuary we have a lot of evidence to suggest the Talpiot tomb is in fact the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.
Name:JMD •
Date: 05/02/07 8:29
A: The Talpiot Tomb: Separating Truth from Fiction (Completed)
Filed under: Tabor's Blog — James Tabor
With the initial airing of the Discovery Channel documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” in the U.S., Canada, and Israel, and the publication of the book, The Jesus Family Tomb by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pelligrino, the Talpiot “Jesus tomb” has generated an avalanche of media coverage and Internet discussion. A simple Google search for the string “Jesus family tomb” generates a million and a half Web sites. The passions and emotions on this topic have been high, and correct and reliable information has been hard to come by. In this post I want to attempt to sort through a list of the “fictions” regarding the Tomb, its discovery, and its investigation, focusing on things that have been reported or written over the past month that are, to my knowledge, in
error.
THE JAMES OSSUARY AND THE TALPIOT TOMB
18) "The 10 ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb with their six inscriptions were catalogued and thoroughly examined in 1980 by Amos Kloner, supervisor of the excavation, Joseph Gath, the excavator, and Joe Zias, the curator of collections at the Rockefeller museum. They were judged at that time to be of no special significance or interest."
The late Joseph Gath makes it clear in his final excavation report that when the ossuaries were removed and tagged in the field, during the first two days of the rescue archaeological operation (March 30 & 31, 1980) that only four of the six inscriptions had been noticed but none were yet “deciphered.” The task of the excavation was not to carefully examine the ossuaries but to remove them quickly, even the first day, excavate the cave, and record and tag any of the findings, and produce an accurate survey map. Those tasks were all carried out by Joseph Gath, with the assistance of Shimon Gibson and three or four workers, according to proper and established procedures. The area supervisor was Amos Kloner.
Several months later when Gath produced his printed report on the ossuaries he simply notes that “Some inscriptions in Greek and Aramaic were found in the cave that have not been deciphered yet.” Lots of ossuaries from tombs were being brought into the Israel Department of Antiquities in those days and those responsible had no reason to pay any special attention to this group. An inscription “Yeshua bar Yehosef”
might have been of some interest had it been noticed, but it is quite difficult to read and could well have been one of the two inscriptions recognized only later when they were cleaned, examined, and photographed. It was Rahmani who finally published the inscriptions in his catalogue (1994), and Kloner’s publication of the Talpiot tomb in
1996 makes use of his work on the inscriptions, accepting his readings. Precisely when Rahmani looked at these particular ossuaries, but one would assume in the 1980s as he worked on his corpus of inscribed ossuaries in the Israeli State collection. There is no indication of anything related to this excavation, or this tomb, or the deciphering of these inscriptions that is in the least bit out of the ordinary in terms
of methods and procedures.
In two separate interviews in late 2005 and early 2006 Joe Zias reported that he had checked all his records and notes and had nothing in his files related to the Talpiot tomb nor any specific recollection of these particular ossuaries of the many hundreds that were collected and catalogued in the Israel State collection during the decade of the 1980s. Zias first noted the ossuary “Jesus son of Joseph” with its interesting
cluster of names from the Talpiot tomb while filming with a BBC crew in 1996. He stated that the “cluster” of names was so unusually impressive that were it not verified that they were from the controlled provenance of a licensed excavation site he would wonder about the possibility of forgery. He also called for further investigation of the tomb and its ossuaries.
19) "The ossuary inscribed “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” cannot possibly be the so-called “10th missing ossuary” from the Talpiot tomb. That particular ossuary was described as “plain,” it had no inscription, it differed in size from the James ossuary, and it was put in the courtyard area behind the Rockefeller museum and essentially discarded."
There were originally ten ossuaries found in the Talpiot tomb, assigned the IAA numbers: 80.500 through 80.509. Only nine are now included in the Israeli State collection and published in Rahmani’s 1994 catalogue (Nos. 701-709, pp. 222-224).
Number 80.509 is missing and there is no photography of it in the IAA files whereas the other nine have photographs and descriptions. All that we know about this 10th ossuary is the single line in Amos Kloner’s 1996 article in ‘Atiquot on the Talpiot tomb that reads:
10. IAA 80.509. 60 x26 x 30 cm. Plain.
The IAA recently re-measured the James ossuary and its dimensions are 57.5 x 26 x 30. There are quite a few ossuaries in the Rahmani catalogue with original and re-measured dimensions, sometimes differing two or three centimeters, so the size of the James ossuary and the missing 80.509 are quite close. Ossuary 80.509 is described as “plain,” meaning not decorated, and it is also listed as “uninscribed.”
One might properly ask whether the James ossuary might be described as “plain” or "uninscribed.” What one has to remember is that Joseph Gath reported a month following the excavation itself that only four of the ossuaries were “so far” noticed as inscribed, and yet we now know there turned out to be six once they were cleaned and more closely examined at the Rockefeller. This means that the original “field descriptions” were preliminary and that two of the inscribed ossuaries were not immediately noticed as inscribed. Kloner has said in interviews that all of the ossuaries were heavy with moisture and coated with terra rosa soil. So it is possible that a preliminary field description of 80.509 could have been “plain” and its inscription overlooked. If Kloner is basing his 1996 description on the preliminary field notes and observations rather than any subsequent closer examination of 80.509 at the Rockefeller then it is surely possible that “Plain” might fit the James ossuary as a preliminary description. Compared to other decorated ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb
the James ossuary could be described as “plain.” As can be seen in a good photo one can barely make out the beginnings of an extremely faint rossette pattern on the side without the inscription so that compared to the five elaborately “decorated” ossuaries from this tomb it might be called plain.
20) "The patina studies comparing the James ossuary with the other ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb are invalid and tell us nothing. The physical condition of the James ossuary, and the fact that Oded Golan, its owner, acquired it before 1980, show that it could not have come from the Talpiot tomb."
Patina “fingerprinting” is the idea of scanning patina samples on stone surfaces, in this case samples from ossuaries taken at random from a dozen tombs from various locations in the Jerusalem area, with an electron microscope to reveal a chemical spectrum/measurement of elements such as magnesium, aluminum, phosphorus, potassium, titanium and iron. This is a new technique and preliminary results indicated the following:
The Talpiot Jesus ossuary, as expected, provided a close “echo” or correspondence to the patina spectrums taken from the surface walls of the tomb itself, as well as the other Talpiot ossuaries. The spikes and peaks of mineral accretion levels were very similar, just as one might expect from stone exposed to the same conditions over 2000 years. Ossuaries from the other tombs were then similarly tested with preference given to samples that seemed to be a close match visually, in terms of color, to the Talpiot ossuaries, but in no case did the spectrum or chemical pattern come close to that of the Talpiot tomb and its ossuaries. Patina samples were then taken from the 2002 ossuary owned by Oded Golan inscribed “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” which is quite similar in size and shape to the Jesus ossuary but different in visual color. The chemical spectrum of the James ossuary strongly "echoed” those of the Talpiot wall surfaces and its ossuaries, whereas no other ossuaries from other tombs chosen at random approached any type of correspondence at all. These tests indicated that color or “visual” comparisons of ossuary patina can be misleading, in other words, what you can’t see is more important than what you can see.
These results appear to indicate that the James ossuary came from an environment such as that of the Talpiot tomb or one that was strikingly similar. These tests are preliminary and more samples are now being tested with the goal of assembling a more comprehensive data base taken from ossuaries from diverse locations in the Jerusalem area.
Oded Golan, the owner of the James ossuary, insists he had had the ossuary for decades, which puts one back at least to 1980 or earlier, but in his first interviews he was not precise about the date. The stamp on the photo that has now been admitted into evidence in his trial, “Expiry 76,” apparently indicates the expiration date of the paper upon which the photo is printed.
Raising the question about the James ossuary being the missing 10th of Talpiot does not imply any sort of improper conduct on the part of any IAA officials. Shimon Gibson has never been convinced of the 10th missing ossuary option, but he has raised another possibility, that the James ossuary might be a missing 11th ossuary, removed from the tomb prior to the inventory of the official 10, particularly if the patina tests
are indicative of its provenance. There are several questions in this regard that are unresolved. Was the entrance to the tomb accessible even before the blast on March 27th exposed it to full view by blowing open the porch and its roof? The absence of a blocking stone might indicate such. Or alternatively, if the tomb was left open and exposed on the Sabbath between its discovery and the excavation that began on Sunday morning, who knows who might have entered it?
Krumbein’s tests have indicated that the James ossuary shows erosion and plant growth along the bottom as if it were exposed to outside elements at some point in its history, either in ancient or modern times. His initial estimate of a period of 200 years he has recently said was not precise, and the period of such exposure could be much shorter. The oddly faint pattern on one side of the James ossuary, along with its faded color makes one wonder whether it might have had a complex history even in ancient times. It does not have the “like new” look of most ossuaries that are sealed in a single tomb undisturbed for 2000 years. What is needed is a further refinement of the patina comparisons with a wider sample of ossuaries from more tombs in the area, plus any other types of comparative tests between the James ossuary and the nine we have from the east Talpiot tomb.
Name:JohnD •
Date: 05/02/07 12:42
A: Must you keep posting OLD info. Cant you come up with anything about the CURRENT trial thats going on. Your "sucker" comments are childish.
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 05/02/07 18:04
A: I'm just quoting a very true statement. Sucker born every minute. Perhaps 2 a minute now that the population has increased since that comment was made so many years ago. And judging from the posters on this site, I'd say many have congregated here.
How blind are you people that you actually believe this bunk? ITS A TV SHOW and it SCREAMS OF SENSATIONALISM with ZERO credibility!!!!
I get worked up when people are fooled by this kind of junk.
You are all feeding off one another and in a frenzy... too worked up by the smell of blood in the water to see the obvious signs of the hoax put forth here by Simcha and crew.
I fell sorry for you all.
Anyone who puts any credibility into this charade needs to be spoon fed the truth.
Name:JohnD •
Date: 05/03/07 13:11
A: Since you feel sorry for us and we are so blind and stupid why bother? You have made your point,we know how you feel. You have no REAL and CURRENT evidence so why not go away and come back- WHEN YOU DO.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 05/03/07 14:34
A: Sandinoel,
Did you read the book?I'm referring to The Jesus Family Tomb.If you don't want to spend money see if your public library has a copy.And I would like current information on the James ossuary trial.And I don't feel that I'm foolish because I took a close look at the angles and facts on this subject.As far as I'm concerned this IS the greatest biblical archeological find of all time and more people will come to terms with it soon.
Name:betty47 •
Date: 05/03/07 15:02
A: So what's the latest in the Oded Golan trial? I can't find that there's any new developments on a day to day basis on this Ossuary except that more and more scholars are now saying they can't prove that the inscription is a fake. Does that mean Oded Golan is innocent? When will they rule on this? Thanks!!
Name:Not Dattaswami •
Date: 05/30/07 0:35
A: ..
Name:QuebecIndieAnna •
Date: 03/20/15 5:26
A: .
March 20th 2015
Hello this quiet site.
This coming Sunday (March 22nd), on CNN, the question will be asked : "Did Jesus really have a brother?"
Should be interesting.
(Hi Sam. Happy spring. My best to your family.)
Indie
.
Name:sam •
Date: 03/25/15 20:41
A: Hello ,
Dear Indie, thank you.
I wish and your family all the best.
Long time I did not open this site, and I am glad to hear from you.
Old age started to give me some health problems, and I cannot complain.
I will try to watch CNN for the program you mentioned, thank you.
God bless you Indie.
Name:QuebecIndieAnna •
Date: 10/23/15 6:22
A: .
FALL OF 2015
.
Hello again this quiet site.
Sam, I was away for work in 2014-2015.
Am trying to get caught up on some of my reading.
On April 4th of this year, Dr. Tabor, who is good at re-situating who said what, when and where, posted a "where-are-things-at-now" catch-up page.
I am presently reading through the material at the links he gives.
I will try to check in again in the coming weeks.
Hope you are well, my Friend.
