Thoughts on the Survey from the Society of Biblical Literature

The Society of Biblical Literature is circulating a survey among its members. Here is its text:

The United States election of 2004 witnessed the emergence of values, often referred to as Christian values or biblical values, as key political issues. The values most commonly identified in public debates were the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research.

The Society of Biblical Literature, which is the largest international, professional association of teachers and scholars of the Bible, calls attention to the fact that the values so prominently and divisively raised in this 2004 U.S. election are not major concerns in the Bible, and in fact are not even directly addressed in the Bible. Rather, they tend to reflect the underlying problems of homophobia, misogyny, control of reproductive rights, and restraint of expression (including scientific research) in U.S. society today.

With over 7,000 members representing a broad range of political and religious leanings, the Society of Biblical Literature has fostered discussions of such fundamental problems against the background of biblical ethics and respect for all human beings. As many of our members have indicated in publications and lectures, the moral issues dominating the biblical texts focus instead on concerns such as the well-being of individuals, the integrity of community, care for the powerless and the vulnerable, economic justice, the establishment of peace, and the stewardship of the environment.

The Society of Biblical Literature urges citizens and political agencies to direct their energies toward securing these goals and values of well-being and responsibility.

I voted DISAGREE and submitted the following comment:

This survey is an effort to coopt what should be an apolitical organization for political purposes. It suggests that a particular angle or perspective on the biblical texts is or should be typical and that other views or uses of the Bible are problematic or illegitimate. I reject this kind of totalizing discourse, and I further suggest that the SBL should in the future resist any temptation to use its name as a symbol for what may or may not be said politically on the basis of biblical texts. Succumbing to such a temptation is the shortest way to making itself irrelevant in the public square by alienating many of its own.

This survey is the most depressing thing I have read for many days, especially since at the present moment, over 70% of the members voted AGREE.

I'm very much afraid this will fracture the SBL's membership at a key moment in its history.

[I deleted the illustrative comments I quoted from the other members. ]

UPDATE (1/14): Many thanks to all of you, for your comments below, and for the e-mails I've received. I'm particularly thankful to Christopher Brady (see his comment [UPDATE: regrettably now unavailable, see below]) for the information that this survey is an attempt to test the waters and will likely be discussed at the next annual meeting. I hope this resolution will meet there with the rejection it so richly deserves.

When I discussed this with my wife, a historian, she characteristically saw exactly what was at stake. "They're trying to commit the SBL to a particular interpretation of the Bible," she said. "Even if you agree with that interpretation, that's just wrong. It's not about politics, it's about academic freedom." Yep.

UPDATE (1/14, 1:50 pm): I have hidden all the comments on this post. I regret doing this, since most of the comments were thoughtful and worthwhile, but some anonymous commenters have been abusing the privilege. From now on, this weblog will accept comments only from those registered with Blogger; others who wish to comment must e-mail me.

ANOTHER UPDATE (1/14): I referred above to the comment of "Christopher Brady." Sorry, senior moment. I knew better: Chris Brady is Christian M. M. Brady, author of The Rabbinic Targum of Lamentations, published by Brill.

LAST UPDATE (1/16): Other discussions can be found at Apikorsus Online, Biblical Theology, The Coding Humanist (here, here, and here), deinde.org, Hypotyposeis, Paleojudaica (here and here), and SansBlogue. If I missed linking anyone, please let me know. Thanks to all for a most interesting discussion!

James Harrell on Forgeries

The Biblical Archaeology Society website has a few new additions to its coverage of the James Ossuary controversy. Although Hershel Shanks still has no comment posted on the forgery indictments or any expression of remorse for his own role in relentlessly publicizing highly questionable artifacts in his magazine, there are some new articles available in PDF form at this site.

A very interesting one is the one entitled "James Harrell on Forgeries." Harrell is the specialist in ancient stone that has been attacking the methods and conclusions of the Israel Antiquities Authority on the James Ossuary. Although I disagree with some of his fundamental attitudes, his paper is well worth reading (scroll down to find the title).

First of all, he is unambiguously in favor of studying unprovenanced artifacts.

I believe that unprovenanced artifacts should be studied. It may well be that publicizing such objects, and thereby giving them value, only encourages thieves to steal more of them. The resulting loss of archaeological context is certainly lamentable; however, I do not think we should compound the tragedy by ignoring real artifacts just because we do not know where they come from. Given that some of these artifacts can be historically significant, I believe it is our duty as students of the past to study them. It is, of course, the potential historical significance of unprovenanced artifacts that is fueling a large forgery industry.

He then goes on to ask how unprovenanced artifacts can be authenticated and proposes convening expert panels following a set of specified analytical protocols, before any conclusion of authenticity is reached. This suggestion seems to me to be a good one; if it is followed, it would pull the rug out from under sensationalizing reports of "exciting finds" like the ones appearing regularly in BAR. I would also add two things: (1) Museums should pledge themselves not to display or charge admission to see any artifacts that are unprovenanced and that have not been analyzed in accordance with the proposed technical protocols; and (2) scholars, experts, and dealers should communicate to the dealers that uncleaned and unrestored artifacts are far more important than those that are treated, cleaned, or restored — as any one who watches "Antiques Roadshow" should know!

Unfortunately, Harrell makes no suggestions on how the trade in unprovenanced artifacts, which he admits is a problem, can be reduced. And it seems clear to me that the more spectacular the find (that is the more it seems to either confirm or deny a sacred text), the heavier the burden of proof must be for the panel and its protocols. For an unprovenanced artifact, the onus probandi lies all on the side of those who claim authenticity — not, as Shanks and his cronies seem to think, with those who deny it.

The Antiquities Trade: My Big Adventure

Back in the '80's, when I was a newly-minted Ph.D., I had my one and only encounter with the antiquities market. It was pretty innocent, very interesting and — to be frank — a lot of fun.

A professor that I knew offered to put me in touch with a man in Los Angeles (where I then lived) who sold ancient artifacts in his gallery and who had an interesting collection of ancient Judean weights. Since I had just finished working on an article on "Weights and Measures" for the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, I jumped at the chance to examine some actual examples of inscribed shekels, bekas, pims, nesephs, and gerahs.

The dealer, who was perfectly nice, left me alone in his office with the 12-piece collection and a jeweler's scale and other instruments so that I could weigh and measure the pieces and take notes. When I finished, he asked if I would like to write up this collection for his collectors' journal. I don't remember if I hesitated — very likely not — but I think even then I knew that I would never be able to list an article about unprovenanced artifacts seen at a dealer's shop in my curriculum vitae.

But I wanted to thank him for giving me such unfettered access to his weights, which were very interesting (and which, if memory serves, he was not putting up for sale). So I wrote it and it was published in his magazine; I never have included it in any list of my writings.

Recently, with all the hoopla about the forgeries going on, I dug the article up and re-read it. I was pleased to see that, for all my youthful enthusiasm, I had not forgotten to be critical. One entry reads:

No. 7. Weight: 6.01 g; [description follows]. The stone is clearly marked to be one shekel. However, its weight places it among the beka-class of weights, whose average weight is 6.112 g. It is possible that an original shekel was ground down to a beka after wear and abrasion had made it unsuitable for use as a shekel... On the other hand, the peculiar placement of the numeral — to the right of the shekel-sign, instead of to the left, as is normally the case — might mean this stone is inauthentic.

We probably know more about both shekels and bekas than we knew then, and maybe the placement of the numeral actually means "half a shekel." I don't know. But I'm relieved that I was aware of the possibility of forgery.

I don't remember when I learned that being involved with unprovenanced artifacts was fun but slightly disreputable, and that the information they provide is possibly tainted. It seems to be a hard lesson to learn for many people in our profession.

(I'm not going to name the dealer, whom I have no reason to suspect of any kind of illegal activity; but he might be embarrassed at being mentioned in this context on this weblog.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: If you want to learn more about shekels, bekas, pims, nesephs, and gerahs, I unblushingly recommend my own "Weights and Measures," in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume 4 (revised edition), 1988.

The Ossuary and the Need for Skepticism

An interesting and cogent article appears today on LiveScience.com, taken from the Skeptical Enquirer. The whole article is of interest to those following the forgery scandal, but this paragraph is especially apt:

Another example of rushing to judgment and stonewalling against later evidence is Herschel Shanks, who has ardently promoted the James Ossuary and defended Oded Golan. He has engaged in personal attacks on IAA staff and attempted to cast doubt on IAA reports. Shanks has only grudgingly acknowledge[d] the possibility that the James Ossuary inscription is a forgery and that Oded Golan forged it and many other artifacts. While his magazine touted the James Ossuary as a great archeological find in 2002, its position now is that it does not know whether the artifact is forged or Golan is a forger.

A responsible approach to the James Ossuary would have been to start with skepticism and wait for a consensus of several independent experts. Instead, Shanks, BAR, and the ROM [Royal Ontario Museum]jumped at their opportunity for publicity before giving science its opportunity to arrive at the truth.

Read the whole thing.

Down in the Flood

Well, that high tide's risin',
Mama, don't you let me down.
Pack up your suitcase,
Mama, don't you make a sound.
Now, it's king for king,
Queen for queen,
It's gonna be the meanest flood
That anybody's seen.
— Bob Dylan, "Down in the Flood"


It's raining in Ohio, and the river is rising. That's causing some problems in Cincinnati, which (in case you didn't know) is right on the river. We're not in any peril; we live in the College Hill area, highly elevated with reference to the river. It would take a flood of truly Noachian proportions to threaten us. But many are hampered today, at least, and some are in danger.

I'm mainly worried about Marietta, though. Marietta is a beautiful little town in south-east Ohio, and one of the oldest towns in the US outside of the thirteen original colonies. It's been slammed twice this season by floods, as this picture shows. Wherever you see brown, that's where the river went:



Last June Amy and I spent a few days in Marietta, soaking in the historical ambience (Lafayette once visited there) and looking for 19th century gravesites (but that's another story). We stayed in the Lafayette Hotel, which is this building in the above picture:



It's right there next to the river, and I mean just a few yards. Right now the river has closed the gap and is moving up Pike Street. Here's wishing them the best and a full recovery.

By the way, the Lafayette Hotel is supposed to be haunted, as we found out after we stayed there. Fortunately, we didn't stay on the floor where the apparitions are supposed to appear.

Browne and the Mandrakes

Recently I was delighted to encounter in the writings of one old friend — Sir Thomas Browne, the subject of a past blogging — a discussion of Rachel's mandrakes, also the subject of an earlier post. Not only does Brown discuss the same issues I raised in that post, but he anticipated one of my points, that Rachel did not want the mandrakes in order to conceive:

Againe, it is not deducible from the Text or concurrent sentence of Comments, that Rachel had any such intention, and most do rest in the determination of Austine [i.e. St. Augustine], that she desired them for rarity, pulchritude or suavity; nor is it probable she would have resigned her bed unto Leah, when at the same time she had obtained a medicine to fructifie her selfe, and therefore Drusius who hath expressely and favourably treated hereof, is so farre from conceding this intention, that he plainly concludeth, Hoc quo modo illic in mentem venerit conjicere nequeo; how this conceit fell into mens minds it cannot fall into mine, for the Scripture delivereth it not, nor can it be clearely deduced from the Text.

Not only that, but Browne also points out something I missed, that in the "Chaldy paraphrase" — that is the Targum — to the Song of Songs the word "mandrake" is rendered as "balsam." That strengthens another point I made, namely that Rachel might have wanted the mandrakes for their fragrance.

Of course, I'm mainly interested in Browne's citation of the Targum. In the Pseudodoxia Epidemica (1646), from which this quotation is taken, Browne quotes from the "Chaldee paraphrase" a number of times, but never in such as way as to indicate that he read the original Aramaic. Evidently his knowledge of the Targum was derived from one or more Latin translations.

Will Hershel Replace Dan Rather?

I imagine everyone has heard about the action of CBS News took yesterday, firing 4 of its employees because of their role in rushing forged documents on the air during the 2004 Presidential campaign. It's nice to see someone held accountable for poor reporting and low journalistic standards.

Speaking of Hershel Shanks, has anyone heard from him yet? While we're waiting to hear from Hershel concerning the cascade of possible forged antiquities that first reached the public eye through Biblical Archaeology Review, here's a couple quotes from the New York Times concerning CBS's actions yesterday. See if you can tell which one could also apply to Hershel Shanks:

"It appears to the panel that a crash to air the story was under way without effective consideration of the chain of custody" of the memorandums, Mr. Boccardi and Mr. Thornburgh wrote.

"These problems were caused primarily by a myopic zeal to be the first news organization to broadcast what was believed to be a new story ..., and the rigid and blind defense of the segment after it aired despite numerous indications of its shortcomings."

Why, that's right! Both of them could conceivably apply to Hershel Shanks and BAR!

Hey, I'm just kidding. We all know that Shanks is not a real journalist, and therefore can't be held accountable to journalistic standards.

Speaking of accountability, why won't museums offer even the barest of apologies for charging admission to see possibly forged antiquities? From MacLeans, we hear that one museum displayed the ivory pomegranate despite being warned that it was a possible fake:

The Canadian Museum of Civilization went ahead with displaying it as a highlight of the biblical archaeology show from late 2003 to the spring of 2004. Then, just before Christmas, the Israel Museum made world headlines by announcing it had determined that the inscription on the thumb-sized carving is a recent addition -- just as [Frank Moore] Cross had suspected. The object itself is now dated to the 13th or 14th century BCE, far older than Solomon's time, around the 8th century BCE. Israeli police have charged four antiquities collectors with altering artifacts so they appear to be connected to Bible stories, a linkage that makes them much more valuable. Other fakes could come to light as a result of the investigation. Still, Victor Rabinovitch, president of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, has defended the federal institution's handling of the exhibition, claiming no one suspected the pomegranate was fake at the time it hosted the show.

That last sentence is untrue; MacLeans ran a story on Cross's suspicions in October of 2003. All the museum now has to say is, "I'm sorry, we weren't careful enough. From now on, we're going to really pay attention to experts and avoid questionable artifacts, especially when we're taking money from people who think they're seeing a bit of biblical history." But, for some reason, they won't say it.

By the way, there is some confusion in the story from MacLean's. The inscription on the pomegranate was thought to be from the 8th century BCE and to refer to Solomon's temple — but Solomon himself, assuming he existed, belongs to the 10th century BCE.

UPDATE: Jim West chimes in with a "Hear, hear!" Danny Zacharias assumes, correctly, that I now think the James Ossuary is a forgery. I base this on the testimony of experts in fields in which I am not competent (e.g. chemists and geologists), as well as the highly suspicious circumstances of its coming to light, the unsatisfactory answers given by Oded Golan concerning its acquisition, and the involvement of Golan in the acquisition and sale of other antiquities that are arguably forgeries. As far as the Ossuary goes, my "expert" knowledge is limited to its language, and its language does not disqualify it or authenticate it (see my online article linked to the right). In this respect, it is different from the Jehoash tablet, the language of which points (IMHO) clearly to forgery.

UPDATE: I deleted an Anonymous comment added to this page because I considered it to be possibly libelous. If the commenter will re-write his comment, e-mail it to me, and allow me to remove libelous accusations, I will consider reposting it in the future.

Dead Sea Scroll Fact Sheet

When speaking to lay audiences about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I've learned that, although interest is typically very high in the Scrolls, background knowledge about what they are is very low. I've learned never to give a talk to a group of non-specialists without some very elementary prolegomena: What are the Scrolls? When were they discovered? and so on.

To streamline this necessary process, I developed a "Dead Sea Scroll Fact Sheet" that is meant to orient people rapidly to the Scrolls. It is intentionally very simple and "non-denominational": that is, I tried to stay away from presenting any positions as "facts" that are still subjects of debate within the guild — even positions that I personally hold to.

Anyway, now I'm putting it online for any of you to use. Feel free to download it, distribute it, or modify it as you see fit, either with or without attribution to me. It's just a little something that I've found helpful; my hope is that others will as well.

UPDATE: Now available on deinde.org as well. Super!

William Safire on Job 13:15

William Safire is always worth a read, no matter what his opinions are. And today is no different; he takes up the question of the tsunamis and theodicy, a topic already dealt with, glancingly, on "Ralph."

I'll let you read the whole thing for yourself; but he does say one thing that needs correction:

Job's famous expression of meek acceptance in the 1611 King James Version - "though he slay me, yet will I trust in him" - was a blatant misreading by nervous translators. Modern scholarship offers a much different translation: "He may slay me, I'll not quaver."

The reference is to Job 13:15, which reads in the Masoretic text: הן יקטלני לא איחל, which looks like it should mean "behold, he will slay me, I have no hope"--which is pretty much what most of the modern translations say, in their various ways (e.g., the NRSV, JPS, etc.). So was Safire right, was it the King James translators who couldn't face up to the reality of the text?

Actually there is a Ketiv/Qere alternation in this verse: the Ketiv, the written text, does read as I described it above; but the Qere, the text as read, has לו ("to him") for לא ("no, not") so that the sentence reads, הן יקטלני לו איחל, "behold (or if) he kills me, I will hope in him." Now: who was it who lost their nerve? Was it the Masoretes? The apparatus in BHS reads "mlt Mss Vrs ut Q" = "many manuscripts and versions read as the Qere" – including the Vulgate, Targum, and Peshitta. This suggests that the reading may have been ancient.

The modern consensus seems to be to reject the Qere and accept the Ketiv; only the NIV among modern versions reads with the Qere. But maybe the more popular choice reflects the prevailing mood, which is more questioning. Can one really say that this choice between ancient alternatives is the product of "modern scholarship" – or modern sensibilities? In any case, the KJV translators are innocent.

One final question: Where does Safire get "quaver" for the verb יחל?!

UPDATE: Bruce Zuckerman e-mails that the source of Safire's translation is Marvin Pope's rendering in the Anchor Bible commentary series. Bruce says, "At least we know what Job text Safire reaches for first!" I presume that Pope (who does not explain his rendering in my edition of the commentary) emended the text on the basis of the root חיל, "to writhe, tremble, shake."

Toward a Definition of Maximalism

In the study of the Hebrew Bible today, the terms "maximalism" and "minimalism" are thrown around with great abandon. I personally believe the term "minimalism" has a meaning, but "maximalism" does not. Take this test and tell me what you think.

It's easy to find out if you are a minimalist. Just answer "no" to the following question:

Did King David exist?

But trying to find out if you are a maximalist is harder. Let us suppose you have answered "yes" to the above question, but "no" to these two questions:

Did Moses exist?
Did Abraham exist?

Are you still a maximalist? What if you answered "yes" to Moses and "no" to Abraham? Are you still a maximalist?

Let's stipulate that if you said "yes" to all three, maybe you really are a maximalist. But let's add a couple more names to the mix:

Did Noah exist?
Did Adam exist?

Now, if you answered "no" to those two, but "yes" to all the rest, are you still a maximalist? Do you have to answer "yes" to all to be a maximalist, or does that make you a "fundamentalist" (a word I hate, and almost never deployed without a subtext of polemic)?

The question about "Adam" is particularly thorny. Unless you believe the human race has always existed, then you must believe there was at some time a first human. But you might want to object that we are not in a position, historically speaking, to know the name of the gentleman (or lady).

In fact, I submit that it is impossible to define "maximalism." Even if one answered "yes" to David, Moses, and Abraham, as I do, one might still want to add "--but I don't necessarily believe every story told about him." What does that make you?

UPDATE: Thanks for your comments (me too, Dr. Cathey). Responses, appreciative and thoughtful, have also been posted by Jim West and Tim Bulkeley.

Scholar Confesses: Jerry Springer Was My Mayor

Apparently there is an opera about Jerry Springer (!) that is causing a furore in Great Britain. I find the idea of an opera about Jerry Springer a hard thing to imagine, but I am perfectly willing for the Brits to indulge in Jerry Springer. Just keep him far away from me.

Jerry Springer used to be mayor of Cincinnati, the town I live in. His most famous act of the time was to be arrested after paying a Kentucky prostitute with a personal check -- a breathtakingly stupid act. Later he became a noted and respected pundit on local TV, always taking the liberal-leftist point of view, quite unusual in conservative Cincinnati.

Finally (finally!) he left for Chicago, forsaking his pious liberal platitudes in order to trowel out a truly mind-boggling amount of sludge onto the nation's airwaves via his own show. He contemplated running for the Senate from Ohio in 2000, but decided not to.

I can't think of anyone more suited to be the symbol of all that is junky on TV, which now apparently includes the BBC. After all, he was born in London. Y'all can keep him.

Forgery Roundup: Moussaieff to Testify Against Golan, Deutsch

The UK Telegraph reports that Shlomo Moussaieff will testify against Oded Golan, Robert Deutsch, Rafi Brown and the others indicted in the forgery scandal:

Shlomo Moussaieff, 82, who owns Moussaieff Jewellers at the London Hilton and is considered the world's leading private collector of biblical antiquities, confirmed that he would give evidence against the five alleged forgers: Oded Golan, a major Israeli collector and dealer; Robert Deutsch; Shlomo Cohen and Rafi Brown, who are all Israelis; and Faiz al-Amaleh, a West Bank Palestinian. All deny the charges against them.

The article continues:

Mr Moussaieff says that he bought about £2.67 million-worth of antiquities, including bullae, or seals of ancient Jewish kings, but he rejected claims by the Israeli police that the artefacts were bogus.

"Every dealer experiences a common battle against the faker: sometimes they win, sometimes you win," he said from his home in Tel Aviv, where many works from his collection are displayed.

"Listen, I'm a big boy. In my business, if I bought a fake, I can only blame myself. If I fail, I fail. I do not think that these are fakes. Since the age of 40, I think I've had enough knowledge to avoid buying fakes."

Even though Mr Moussaieff believes that he has not been duped, the indictment alleges that during one transaction he grew suspicious of the authenticity of a gold bulla and, after checks showed it to be a fake, refused to pay the $1 million (£535,000) asking price.

Prosecutors said that this raised doubts about the authenticity of other items he bought from the alleged conmen. Major Jonathan Pagis, who is leading the Israeli police investigation, said: "People want very much to believe that what they bought is genuine. The buyers' faith is unshakable, as they want to believe that they have a genuine piece of history."

The article is confused; bullae are seal impressions, not seals. It is unlikely that there exists a "gold bulla"; but one could easily imagine an actual seal with a gold setting. Another witness is also named:

Dr Nigel Strudwick, an Egyptologist at the British Museum, has also been listed as an expert witness, although the museum said last week that he had not been informed.

Amir Ganor, the head of Israel's Antiquities Authority detective unit, who launched the investigation, claims that one forged item, a "gold object which had connections to Egypt" was bought and displayed by the British Museum.

He would not give more details, saying that the matter was still under investigation, but he added that he would be seeking help from Scotland Yard in the run-up to the trial later this year.

The article concludes:

[Amir] Ganor said that the trial would be the biggest ever seen in connection with forged artefacts. "It is important because it is connected to the sinister exploitation of religion, of the Jewish and Christian beliefs," he said.

"We hope it will also have an impact on academic studies by experts around the world, so that in future they base their research on real items, not forged items."

Read the whole thing.

I don't understand exactly what Moussaieff will say against Golan et al., if he still believes, for instance, that eponymous Moussaieff Ostraca and other artifacts are genuine. Does he feel that he has been cheated, or not? Watch this space.

UPDATE: The gold item (not "gold bulla," as the article states) that Moussaieff initially considered to be a forgery was described in Biblical Archaeology Review:

Another item casting suspicion on Golan is a seal inscribed “Belonging to Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah.” If genuine, the Menashe (the monarch’s Hebrew name) seal would be an extraordinary object, the rarest of the rare. Hezekiah was an important eighth-century B.C.E. king of Judah, and his son Manasseh ruled from 697–642 B.C.E. The seal is especially treasured because it purports to be in its original gold setting. According to Golan, a Palestinian brought it to him on behalf of an unknown owner. Unable to handle a purchase of that magnitude (the original asking price was $2 million), Golan took it to Moussaieff, who, after much deliberation and consultation, decided that it was likely to be a forgery and declined to buy it. The formation of the letters on the seal was not elegant enough for a king, Moussaieff felt (a judgment shared by others). Besides, the first letter of the monarch’s name looked too much like a Moabite mem rather than a Hebrew mem. But, still, this was not enough to definitely declare it a fake.

Moussaieff later changed his mind about buying the seal and asked Golan to bring it back. When Golan contacted his connection, however, he was told that the seal was no longer available. Apparently, someone else had purchased it and perhaps smuggled it out of the country. No one, including Golan, knows where it is today.

From H. Shanks, "Is Oded Golan a forger?" BAR 29.5 (Sept./Oct.) 2003.

Thoughts on BCE/CE, BC/AD

Mark Goodacre mentions in this post (last paragraph) the non-use of the terms "BCE" and "CE" in the church and academy. This is an issue I have thought about quite a bit, since I have done a fair amount of public speaking to Christian, Jewish, and interfaith audiences of laypeople.

My general rule is that for Jewish audiences (of course) I use BCE/CE, for interfaith groups I use BCE/CE with a brief explanation, and for Christian audiences I use BC and AD. You might ask why I don't use BCE and CE with the Christians as well, after explaining what they are. I have to confess that in oral presentation I really prefer BC and AD because of their contrastive value -- audiences find it easy to mishear and confuse BCE and CE, and sometimes the speaker (me) also mixes them up. This problem is reduced with BC and AD, which sound sufficiently different not to be confused.

Nevertheless, I agree it would do no harm for Christian audiences to hear BCE and CE a bit more and get used to them. Sometimes in "interfaith" groups (which often turn out to be largely Christian) I've heard people scoff at the use of "BCE/CE" as an example of political correctness; and my response is usually, "No, it's just good manners. The majority group in a culture should not get to decide what terms minorities are allowed to find offensive or discomfiting." And then people are fine with it, as long as their speaker does not mix the terms up.

By the way, it is really amazing how many people don't know what "AD" means. Most know that "BC" means "before Christ" but fewer know that "AD" stands for anno Domini (in the year of the Lord). In fact, a lot of people I've talked to think it means "After Death," that is, the death of Christ!

On the other side of the coin, I once made the mistake of saying to a Jewish audience that "CE" stood for "Christian Era." You can imagine the fervor of the objections to that. They carefully explained that it meant "Common Era," and clearly didn't believe me when I protested that I had merely misspoken. And yet in Modern Hebrew, the equivalent of "CE" is li-s'firat ha-notzrim, "by the reckoning of the Christians" -- in other words, "Christian Era." But that's Hebrew, in a culture where Jews are the majority and can afford less semantic vigilance. In the USA and other English-speaking countries, it is, and will remain, "Common Era."

Finally, I have to share the worst explanation I've ever read for the use of "CE." According to PBS, it's used "because of new knowledge regarding the date of the Christ's birth"! Huh?

UPDATE: Michael Pahl and Helenann Hartley follow with apt comments. I should add that my post refers only to my practice with lay audiences; within the academy, I always use BCE/CE.

Potpourri: Aramaic, Snowclones, Album Covers

I wrote this piece last spring for lay audiences; now you can enjoy it. I'll add a link on the right later on.

For those of you who love The Simpsons (as I do), this post on Language Log provides some interesting information on the use of Homer's "mmmm.... [NOUN]." It also mentions a useful new word: "snowclones." Follow the links.

The 10 Worst Album Covers of All Time: This made me weep with laughter, but then I'm a sentimental guy.

Mmmmmm.... Aramaic....

Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, Again

I have continued to ponder the question of dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in view of some criticisms from Stephen Goranson, and other considerations that have occurred independently to me. Part of my perplexity lies in what to do with the Carbon-14 dating, concerning which Goranson and Greg Doudna are now having an acrid debate on the ANE list.

I remain pretty sure that the upper date, the terminus a quo, for the formation of the Scroll sect cannot be much earlier, if at all, than 100 BCE. I think the archaeological evidence and the internal evidence of the scrolls all point this way. Since no one is giving me any grief about that date, I'll say no more about it.

The lower date, the terminus ad quem, is more difficult. In my earlier post, I opted for 5 BCE, relying mainly on Doudna's analysis of the C-14 dating. Now the fact is, I don't really know a damn thing about the science or the math of C-14 dating; I pretty much have to rely on what I can pick up from the journal articles. Since Doudna's conclusions generally supported what I already believed on other grounds, I was happy, in time-honored scholarly fashion, to use them to bolster my own argument.

Nevertheless, even aside from Doudna's C-14 argument, I started to have a bad conscience about the terminus ad quem. For one thing, I really didn't need a terminus ad quem at the end of the first century; for the purposes of my historical reconstruction, it was sufficient to rule out the 2nd century BCE. No reliable scholar would wish to put the origin of the sect in the 1st century CE.

Not only that, although one could argue (and I did) that no sectarian texts from Qumran date from the 1st century CE, it is unquestionably true that some sectarian texts were copied in the 1st century CE: the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice from Masada. It is also true that other sectarian texts continued to be copied long after the 1st century CE: the Damascus Document, discovered in two medieval copies from the Cairo Geniza. So my terminus ad quem, if not my historical reconstruction, is shaky even without the C-14 evidence.

Into this perplexity now comes the just published article "Redating the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls," by Joseph Atwill and Steve Braunheim with Robert Eisenman. The article attacks in no uncertain terms Doudna's C-14 interpretation. Their conclusion:

...when taken as a whole the C14 date showed that neither paleography nor C14 dating is a sufficiently precise tool to contribute conclusively to the debate over the accurate dating of the Scrolls. (p. 157)

As I stated, I just don't have the science to assess many of the claims in this article. It looks to me like its real agenda is to clear the way for Eisenman's claims that the scrolls are connected to early Christianity, and I regard that theory as far-fetched. But it did convince me that I can't just continue to blithely use C-14 arguments without understanding them.

I will say that when the article speaks about matters in which I am a specialist, it is disingenuous and self-serving. An example is when the authors refer to "dated evidence of a contract [evidently 4Q348] carrying the name of a High Priest and date of approximately 46-47 CE; thus giving vivid internal evidence that negates any idea that the documents were deposited in this cave prior to this time" (p. 150). I can't believe that the authors don't know that all the Qumran texts numbered 4Q342-8, 4Q351-60 are unprovenanced and thought to come in fact from the Wadi Seiyal! They also apparently don't know that the Kefar Bebayou papyrus is now known as the Kefar Berayu papyrus (p. 156).

So this article is slanted and sloppy; but I can't just dismiss it. What I can do is henceforth relegate the various C-14 datings to the footnotes. If that leaves me with a more open terminus ad quem than I at first wanted -- so be it!

BIBLIOGRAPHY: "Redating the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls," by Joseph Atwill and Steve Braunheim with Robert Eisenman, Dead Sea Discoveries 11.2 (2004), pp. 143-57. Greg Doudna's most recent discussion of the date of the scrolls can be found here.

Forgery Roundup: Oded, Man of Sorrows

Since the indictments, I've been going back and reviewing some of the literature previously published on Oded Golan, and I was struck by some things he said in (where else?) Biblical Archaeology Review:

[When I agreed to allow the James ossuary inscription to be published in BAR] I had no idea that I would have to undergo my own Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem.

And at the end of the article:

I cannot say for certain whether the ossuary once bore the bones of James... who received a death sentence by the Sanhedrin and was later stoned... But I do know with certainty that the present government authorities in Jerusalem have proven, through their conduct, or should I say misconduct, that they are truly successors of that government of 2,000 years ago.

Let's see now. If I follow the metaphors here, Golan is casting himself first as the suffering Jesus and then as the martyred James the Just, and the Israeli government as the Sanhedrin. I can't be the only person who finds this not only grotesque, but offensive.

Incidentally, Golan also has the chutzpah to say: "I live modestly." Huh? That doesn't square with glimpses of his apartment seen in Sixty Minutes a few weeks ago, or in the views of it seen in an Israeli documentary, as described by Rochelle Altman:

Mr. Oded Golan enters, seated at his blonde grand piano set in the middle of a spacious room and surrounded with tiers of glass shelves, packed with artifacts, set against the distant walls. Golan's apartment, with its rooms running back the length of the building and spanning roughly 25 meters across the frontage, is an apartment with a price tag of at least $800,000 in US currency. Wait! What happened to Golan's "tiny" apartment in Tel-Aviv where he was visited by the reporters from Time magazine?

That article bears re-reading, especially in view of the indictments.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere: Jim West gives the text of a letter to the ANE list from Israel Finkelstein, the excavator of Megiddo, and why Deutsch was discharged from the Megiddo excavation. By the way, it is easy to infer from Deutsch's website that he is still involved in the Megiddo project!

Mark Goodacre raises a pregnant question. He wonders what the reaction to the indictments is of Ben Witherington, who has always believed in the authenticity of the James ossuary. This raises an interesting issue for me on the attitude to be taken by and towards scholars who write about texts that later turn out to be forged. I hope to blog about this soon.

Seth Sanders has an erudite discussion about biblical archaeology on his blog; read all his posts on this topic. He does say one thing that puzzles me, though:

So another question we could ask is, why is the debate cast in these terms, of maximalism vs. minimalism, history vs. ideology, authenticity vs. forgery?

I'm not sure why "authenticity vs. forgery" is thrown into this pot. An epigraph either is authentic or it is forged, while, say, "maximalism vs. minimalism" are two ideological grids which may admit of many degrees between ideal forms at the poles, and they may not "correspond" to any actual state of affairs. So I'm not sure how this is relevant to the forgery scandal. But read Seth, not me.

UPDATE: Jim Davila gives a convincing construal of Seth's words here. As to the relevance of the James Ossuary, part of which is forged, according to reports: I should have said above "the words of an epigraph are authentic or forged," since, as Jim points out, forged words can be added to authentic ones. My point, in any case, was that the terms "authentic" and "forged" do not admit degrees.

Goodbye, Will

Today was New Comics Day, but a sad one, due to the death of Will Eisner, a giant in the field, the very first comics auteur. The New York Times wrote:

Will Eisner, an innovative comic-book artist who created the Spirit, a hero without superpowers, and the first modern graphic novel, "A Contract With God," died on Monday in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where he lived. He was 87.
...
His seriousness helped bring mainstream attention to works like Art Spiegelman's "Maus" and Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis." As Mr. Couch put it: "He drew on everything from Theodore Dreiser to the Talmud. He brought American literary naturalism to the comics. And he kept publishing these books until everybody woke up and said, 'Wow, these are books! This is an art form! We should take this seriously!' "

Every artistic field has its "best-of" award: the Oscars, the Emmies, the Grammies. The annual awards for best comics are the Eisner Awards.

The Problem of Planted Epigraphs

Jim West has an interesting post this morning with a quote from archaeologist Joe Zias:

As one who has seen the profession, somewhat as an outsider (anthropologist) I can guarantee you that things get planted in sites, both here in Jerusalem and several sites along the Dead Sea.

That reminded me of something I just read in Avigad & Sass's Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, regarding Seal no. 1206, which they take to be a forgery. Here is part of the catalogue entry:

Tel Qasile, chance find made in 1946 by a certain Dr. Hoff, who was one of a party led by archaeologist J. Kaplan... Reused limestone mosaic tessera of the Byzantine period [with an ancient Hebrew inscription] ...

It can only be guessed who made the seal and put it in the party's path, and why. In this light one of the two famous Hebrew inscriptions from Tel Qasile, or both, likewise chance finds made [on the surface] before the excavation, may have to be reexamined. (pp. 457-458)

The two famous Hebrew inscriptions are two ostraca first published in 1951. One of them is pictured here. The second one provides the only extra-Biblical mention of "gold of Ophir." (See the article here.)

I don't know whether these two ostraca are authentic or not, but they raise a question that only just occurred to me. For an artifact to have a provenance, must it be discovered in the ground? If surface finds are suspicious, then that will cast a shadow over a lot more material. I'd be happy to hear from archaeologists about this issue.

If, by the way, the "gold of Ophir" ostracon falls under suspicion, then that would disqualify all the Hebrew epigraphical references that I can think of with the form METAL + LOCATION. The expression "silver of Tarshish" (כסף תרשׁשׁ) occurs in one of the Moussaieff Ostraca, and the phrase "copper of Edom" (נחשׁת אדם) occurs in the Jehoash tablet.

The Tel Qasile ostracon, of course, is not part of the "Golan team" suspected forgeries.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Maisler, B. 1951. "Two Hebrew Ostraca from Tell Qasile." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10: 265–67.

Stamp Seals and Provenance

I've been looking at the Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, by Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass (1997). I don't think I realized before how thoroughly the study of ancient West Semitic seals has been compromised by the number of unprovenanced items. Of the 1189 items in the Corpus, only 180 -- 15% -- have an archaeological provenance. If the jar-handle impressions are removed from the calculation (they are considered uncharacteristic of the seals as a whole) the number becomes 134 out of 1139, or 11.8%.

Depressing. Especially when one considers that seals without provenance could possibly be forged, as Sass notes, in the last sentence of the book:

The possibility that our mostly unprovenanced material contains forgeries should always be borne in mind, for the impact of such items on works like the present one is inestimable. (p. 552)

In fact the question of authenticity haunts this entire volume. Not only at the end of the work, but at the beginning Sass says "We are dealing mostly with material of unknown origin, and the possible presence of forgeries ... should constantly be borne in mind" (p. 15). In introducing the section on "Names," Sass says "That the body of the material is largely unprovenanced is a considerable disadvantage" (p. 465). In seal after seal, the notation "Authentic?" recurs.

It is interesting that the "Baruch" bulla (no. 417 in the corpus), named in the indictment of Golan et al. as a forgery, is not questioned. There is, however, a notice that the script of the Baruch bulla is the same as that of two other bullae (no. 413, with the name "Gaalyahu," and 535, with the name "Yeshayahu son of Hamul"). These bullae may also fall under suspicion.

I don't know the solution to the problem of unprovenanced or forged material. But as a philologist I know that I would use the names and words contained in the unprovenanced seals either sparingly or not at all; and if I did use them, I would treat them like Barry Bonds' hitting records: to be clearly marked with a big asterisk.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals, by Nahman Avigad, revised and completed by Benjamin Sass, Jerusalem 1997. (UPDATE: See also Hershel Shanks, "Fingerprint of Jeremiah's Scribe," Biblical Archaeology Review 22.2 [March-April 1996], for Bulla B referenced below.)

UPDATE: As the comment below points out, the actual indictment apparently considers the fingerprint-bearing Baruch bulla to be a forgery, not necessarily the one on display in the Israel Museum. But surely if one is a forgery, the other is one as well? They were clearly imprinted with the same seal. I can't imagine that Bulla B, the fingerprint bulla, is a fake and not Bulla A. Or do some imagine that Bulla B was faked as an imitation of Bulla A, with the fingerprint added as a special feature? I would think that using a real bulla as the template for a fake bulla would be extraordinarily risky, since the seal impression would have to be, not just similar, but an exact match.

Here's another question: Bulla B famously has the "scribe's fingerprint" impressed into the clay. If it is a forgery, whose fingerprint is it? Could they use this fingerprint to identify the forger?

Here is Avigad's original drawing of Bulla A:



UPDATE II: The fingerprint question had already been raised by Stephen Carlson@Hypotyposeis here.

Urban Vocab

My son used this term the other day. Said I was "harshing his mellow." What do I do now? Other than point out that it is an example of this, I mean.

Words Gone Wild

If you're here for Forgery News, you have to realize: "Ralph" is about more than forging antiquities (although, these days, not much more). I promise there will be more about the forging scandal as it develops. Meanwhile...

I enjoy reading Uncut, the British music magazine. I get all a lot of information about new music from them, because for some reason the Brits have way better taste than we do in music. Plus, it comes with a CD glued to the cover that always contains some usually at least decent and occasionally mind-boggling music.

Nevertheless, their recent issue with the listing of 2004's top 60 albums contained some prose that I could only describe as, uh, overripe. Check out some of these phrases and tell me what you think.

HARD TO IMAGINE: "bleakly corrosive yet strangely uplifting" (#6, Mark Lanegan Band)

??? AWARD (winner): "sad but livid perfection" (#9, American Music Club)

ADJECTIVE OVERLOAD: "sharp-dressed quartet's precise guitars and jagged rhythmic angles, flushed with arthouse swagger" (#10, Franz Ferdinand)

OVERDOING IT: "songs possessed of a terrible, haunted beauty that made him sound like a prophet whose long unheeded warnings of doom had now come all too horribly true" (#11, Tom Waits)

OVER MY HEAD: "UK 2-step, glitch-house and the hypersyncopation of Nu R&B" (#15, Junior Boys)

HARD TO IMAGINE II: "woozy netherworld" (#16, REM)

ADJECTIVE OVERLOAD: "goosebump-inducing quasi-religious fire of strings, choir, and hillbilly banjo" (#24, Sufjan Stevens)

??? AWARD (honorable mention): "arresting style of mutant grime-pop" (#25, Dizzee Rascal)

HARD TO IMAGINE III: "mystical trip into an eerie neverland of joyful bohemian blues" (#26, Devendra Banhart)

PSEUDO-CRITICAL JARGON ALERT: "his vocals are clearly indebted to early Bolan" (#26, Devendra Banhart)

ADJECTIVE OVERLOAD: "defiant agit-rock blitz of angry, clattering riffs" (#29, Steve Earle)

BEST LINE: "Bono doesn't do intimate, so even a song about his dying father sounds like it's being broadcast through a megaphone" (#35, U2)

HARD TO IMAGINE IV: "sumptuous soundtrack to self-loathing" (#38, The Czars)

??? AWARD (runner up): "thrillingly morbid" (#40, Interpol)

NOT MANY OF THOSE (winner): "pop's most famous Icelander" (#41, Bjork)

ADJECTIVE OVERLOAD: "stirring set of scuffed Latino rhythms, high-noon hymns and creepy piano interludes" (#42, Giant Sand)

??? AWARD (honorable mention): "a thrilling, compulsive niche" (#46, Secret Machines)

ADJECTIVE OVERLOAD: "ragged-but-jangling guitars and scuffed-up vocals of this delightfully scruffy, home-made, semi-acoustic affair" (#53, Paul Westerberg)

NOT MANY OF THOSE (runner-up): "the finest young British female singer-songwriter to emerge over the last 12 months" (#60 Polly Paulusma)

In case you were wondering, their Album of the Year was Brian Wilson, "Smile." My son agrees. I don't.

The Moussaieff Ostraca, Bibliographic Notes

I wish to correct an error that I made in an earlier post, when I said that Robert Deutsch was the first to publish the Moussaieff Ostraca. That is not correct. Deutsch was apparently involved in the sale of the ostraca to Shlomo Moussaieff, but was not involved in their publication.

Having gotten that confession off my chest, I will give here a short chronological bibliography of such items as I have been able to gather about the two ostraca in question.

The first publication was by P. Bordreuil, F. Israel, D. Pardee, "Deux ostraca paléo-hébreux de la collection Sh. Moussaieff," Semitica 46, 1996, pp. 49-76.

Shanks, H. "Three Shekels for the Lord, ancient inscription records gift to Solomon's Temple." Biblical Archaeology Review Nov./Dec. 1997, pp. 28-32.

P. Bordreuil, F. Israel, D. Pardee, "King's Command and Widow's Plea: Two New Hebrew Ostraca of the Biblical Period," Near Eastern Archaeology 61, 1998, pp. 2-13.

The authenticity of the ostraca is questioned and a debate begins:

Israel Eph‘al and Joseph Naveh, “Remarks on the Recently Published Moussaieff Ostraca,” Israel Exploration Journal 48 (1998).

Angelika Berlejung and Andreas Schüle, “Erwägungen zu den neuen Ostraka aus der Sammlung Moussaieff,” Zeitschrift für Althebräistik 11 (1998), pp. 68–73.

Elisha Qimron, “New Hebrew Inscriptions: Their Linguistic Origin,” Leshonenu 61 (1998).

Shanks, H. "The Three Shekels and Widow's Plea ostraca: real or fake?" Biblical Archaeology Review May/June 2003, pp. 40-45.

Christopher Rollston, "Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests," Maarav 10 (2003), discusses the Moussaieff Ostraca on pp. 145-146, 158-173, and concludes, "I am confident beyond a reasonable doubt that both of the Moussaieff Ostraca were indeed written by the same person, and that both are modern forgeries."

A jumbo-size drawing by Rollston of the "3-shekel" ostracon can be found here.

UPDATE (1/3, 6:45 pm): Jim West links to this report in which the fifth suspect in the forgery scandal has been named: Rafael Braun. This is undoubtedly the "Raffi Brown" mentioned in an earlier post, who was involved with the acquisition of the ivory pomegranate. With respect to the Moussaieff Ostraca, the following paragraph is interesting:

The indictment accused Braun and antiquities collector Shlomo Cohen of attempting to forge an inscription on an ostracon - a fragment of limestone pottery - from the period of the kingdoms of Judea, which lasted from the 10th to sixth century B.C.

"During or close to 1995 the two accused men formed a conspiracy to forge an ostracon with the purpose that it would constitute an ostracon with an inscription from the period of the Judean kingdoms," the indictment said. "The accused did this for financial benefit."

In view of Braun's indictment, this quotation from BAR becomes all the more significant:

The former head of the Israel Museum’s laboratories, Rafi Braun, is now a leading Jerusalem antiquities dealer. Braun claims that it is impossible to stop illegal digging. According to him, the better antiquities dealers in Israel perform a service by advising the government of unusual pieces that come on the market and by directing these pieces to museums.

The article quoted is Hershel Shanks, "The Verdict on Advertisements for Near Eastern Antiquities—Dubitante," BAR 10.6 (Nov./Dec.) 1984.

Forgery Roundup: Deutsch to Sue IAA?

The ANE (Ancient Near East) mailing list has been having some interesting conversations about the forgeries:

Robert Deutsch responds to the indictment here.

The public announcements and press conference by the IAA during this last week, in which they purposely linked my name to a host of allegedly illegal activities with which the IAA knows that I have absolutely no connection, leaves me no alternative but to immediately file suit against the IAA and its agents personally, for irreversibly damaging my name and reputation and for the serious financial consequences of their malicious and criminal acts.

Yuval Goren explains how thermoluminescence is not an infallible guide to the age of a bulla here.

I am trying to obtain from Israel a copy of the indictment. If I'm successful, I'll try to post it on Ralph or provide a link to it.

UPDATE: I am informed by Uzi Dahari of the IAA that the Hebrew text of the indictments will be posted soon on the Hebrew site of the IAA.

The Abdi Seal: Another Forgery?

In view of the fact that the indictment of the suspected forgers lists officials at Sotheby's, the London auction house, as witnesses, it is natural to ask whether an unprovenanced seal sold by Sotheby's is suspected of being a forgery.

It was first published by Andre Lemaire (there's a caveat right there) in Biblical Archaeology Review (another caveat). But let Lemaire tell the story:

The name of the northern kingdom of Israel’s last king has turned up on a beautiful seal from the eighth century B.C.E.! Although the seal did not belong to the king himself, it was the property of one of his high-ranking ministers....

The seal surfaced at a Sotheby’s auction in New York City at the end of 1993. Neither Sotheby’s nor the owner of the seal apparently knew what they had. The title of the catalogue—“Antiquities and Islamic Works of Art”—gave no hint that one of the items was a rare Hebrew seal. Although the catalogue correctly dated the seal to the ninth-seventh centuries B.C.E., it misidentified the seal as Phoenician and estimated its value at between $1,200 and $1,800. An excellent picture of the seal was enough, however, to alert one member of the small community who follow these things; when the hammer fell on December 14, 1993, the seal fetched $80,000. Even at this price, most experts agree, the purchase was a steal. The winning bidder—and now owner of the seal—was Shlomo Moussaieff, an Israeli collector living in London, who has made it available to me for study and publication.

The inscription on the seal reads לעבדי עבד הושׁע, "(Belonging) to Abdi servant of Hoshea." Lemaire took the "Hoshea" of the seal as the name of the last king of Israel (the Northern Kingdom), as, perhaps, he was intended to. This seal has entered the lore of apologetics as one more proof of biblical accuracy, as in this site (which has an illustration) and a dozen others. And in fact, for all I know, this seal might indeed be authentic, though unprovenanced. But the circumstances of its becoming known are similar to the cases of the suspected forgeries.

It would be good to have a list of exactly what antiquities are under suspicion. But even when such a list is made public, I hope scholars never again treat unprovenanced material, even in the absence of indications of forgery, as evidence on a par with artifacts discovered in situ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lemaire, "Royal Signature: Name of Israel's Last King Surfaces in a Private Collection," BAR 21:6 (Nov./Dec.), 1995.

Top Ten Reasons to Suspect Your Priceless Collection of Antiquities is Forged

With apologies to David Letterman...

10. Dealer always greets you with "Shalom, sucker!"
9. Text of temple plaque proves to be headlines from last week's Haaretz.
8. Sticker on bottom of ossuary: HOW'S MY FORGING? CALL 1-888-IFORGE.
7. Ancient Hebrew bulla came with ancient Hebrew decoder ring.
6. Text of Aramaic ostracon, when translated, reads: PLEASE RECYCLE.
5. Lab analysis of patina reveals trace amounts of bubble gum.
4. On bottom of decanter: "Made in China."
3. Text of ancient Egyptian scarab: "I (heart) Pharaoh."
2. Dan Rather vouches for their authenticity.
1. They were purchased from Oded Golan.

A List of Suspected Forgeries

At the risk of turning this blog into a Forgery Watch, I will mention this item before taking a breather, I hope, from forgery news. Joseph Lauer (via an email from Jim West) mentions a list of some of the forged objects in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz. The list is as follows:

1. The James Ossuary
2. The Mattanyahu Decanter (see below)
3. The Ivory Pomegranate
4. Stone Menorah
5. Seal of the King Manasseh
6. Baruch son of Neriah bulla
7. The Yehoash Tablet
8. The Widow's Plea Ostracon
9. The 3 Shekel Ostracon [the latter two also known as the Moussaieff Ostraca]

I'll try to blog about some of these items in the days to come. The decanter, which is featured in some of the press conference pictures, is described in an article by Hershel Shanks, "Is Oded Golan a Forger?" from the Sept./Oct. 2003 issue of BAR (also found here, scroll down).

On paleographic grounds, the inscription is dated to sometime before 600 B.C.E. The decanter, about 7.5 inches tall, is very well preserved and its inscription is easily read. The only decoration is three concentric circles around the neck of the vessel. The decanter apparently holds a quarter of a certain measure; just which measure, scholars do not know. Mattanyahu, a common name meaning “gift of Yahweh,” may have been a Temple priest.

Apparently, the IAA thinks the decanter, too, may be a modern forgery. It was reportedly sold to Moussaieff by Golan. It was published in Forty New Ancient West Semitic Inscriptions, by Robert Deutsch, an antiquities dealer who has been closely involved with Golan and Moussaieff (he is editing a festschrift for Moussaieff) and by Deutsch’s Ph.D. adviser, Professor Michael Heltzer of Haifa University.

Here is a picture of the decanter:

Surfing the Antiquities Trade

The websites of several antiquities dealers are pretty interesting. Robert Deutsch, one of those indicted in the forger ring, runs a shop called The Archaeological Center. It is by far the richest of the sites I have seen in epigraphic material. Among the items offered for sale is this Aramaic ostracon:

He also offers for sale this ossuary, apparently uninscribed:

The whole site repays close attention. Apparently, as this site shows, Deutsch also has some LMLK jar-handles for sale.

I wouldn't venture to guess about the authenticity of these objects. If the ostracon is one of those Idumean ostraca recently published, it is probably for real.

The Barakat Gallery in Los Angeles also has some interesting items. This collection of letters, for instance, baffles me. I've never seen anything like it. This Aramaic incantation bowl is interesting, but unprovenanced, like all these items. Adding to the value of this Phoenician scarab is the scholarly article by Pierre Bordreuil authenticating it at the bottom of the page. And lastly, the Mandaic Incantation Amulet was found in Jerusalem, which is most unexpected. Check out the prices for these and other items. It's a lucrative business, indeed.

Again, I don't know if any of these items are forgeries or whether they were obtained through illegal means. They may all be authentic and obtained legally, for all I know. But I can't help saying, along with Indiana Jones, "They belong in a museum!"

UPDATE (1/1, 7:48 pm): Jim West has several follow-up posts here, here, and here. Jim Davila adds some apt comments. The storm seems to be centering for the moment on Robert Deutsch; see the posts of the past few days.

Forgery Roundup

The AP story on the indictment was interpolated in this way by at least one Arab site:

Another Jewish forgery to be discovered and declared is the Jewish right wing extremist's claim that their Temple that was destroyed by the Romans more than four thousand years ago was located where the present Muslim Holy Site of Haram Al Shariff, Al Aqsa Mosque stands.

It can't be repeated too often, I suppose: that the First and Second Temples existed and that they were located on the Temple Mount is a historical fact, not anybody's "claim."

This excerpt from another story tells us where the next forgery might be located:

The indictment lists 124 witnesses, including antiquities collectors, archaeologists, officials from Sotheby's auction house and representatives of the British Museum and the Brooklyn Museum.

Hey, kids! Want to make your own ancient patina at home? Here's how!

The Christian Science Monitor, in an interesting background piece, indicates that the illegal antiquities trade is also being driven, in part, by the depressed economic status of Palestinians.

As sites in the West Bank are being emptied, it appears more Palestinians are taking the risk of crossing the politically sensitive "Green Line" that separates Israel from the West Bank, in search of more promising places to dig. A rise in poverty is a likely motive. Last year, the IAA's anti-theft unit reported that it caught a Palestinian Authority policeman digging within Israel to supplement his meager wages.

Read the whole thing.

On New Year's Eve

This morning when I went out to get the paper, I thought at first it was raining, for I heard water pouring out of downspouts and the patter of drops everywhere. But it wasn't raining. Four days and nights in a row of forty-plus temperatures had finally brought about a rapid meltdown of all the ice and snow from last week's mammoth snowstorm. Sodden lawns are now visible and everyone's cars are filthy from salt and mud. But it's good to start the New Year off with ice-free streets.

... The last time I was in a bar, a few years ago, I noticed a sign that said DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. I said to myself, "How do they think we got here?" Nevertheless I hope everyone follows this sound advice tonight. Me, I'm turning in early in hopes of staving off a cold that has been stalking me all day. If I blog only a little in the next day or so, you'll know I was unsuccessful.

... Best wishes to all for a safe and happy 2005.

How It All Began: Hershel and the Pomegranate

Readers may have been wondering if I was exaggerating yesterday when I pointed the finger at Hershel Shanks as a principal, although unwitting, enabler of the trade in stolen and forged antiquities. It is worth going back 20 years or so and examining the role that Shanks and Biblical Archaeology Review played in the case of the Ivory Pomegranate.

The story begins with Andre Lemaire, who was later to regain the spotlight by being the first to publish information about the James Ossuary. Lemaire is a good scholar, but he has had one bad habit: by his own admission, he haunts the antiquities shops of Israel, always on the look-out for unpublished epigraphic material. On one such jaunt in 1979, a dealer showed him the small engraved ivory pomegranate. He determined, by himself, that the piece was not a fake, that the inscription dated from the 8th century BCE and had adorned the scepter of a priest in the Temple of Solomon. He published an article in 1981 in Revue Biblique about it, and, in 1984, he published an article describing the find in BAR. On the basis of photographs alone, Frank Moore Cross also pronounced the find authentic, calling it "priceless."

In a later issue of BAR, Shanks called on the unknown owner and the unidentified dealer to come forward with the piece:

We can only plead with the owner to identify himself—or at least to allow the Israel Museum to display the inscribed ivory pomegranate anonymously, so that the public can view this beautiful relic, which can now be seen only in BAR’s lifelike color photographs.

The Israeli Attorney General and the Director of the Department of Antiquities should also look into the situation. Is it legal for a private individual to keep to himself a priceless artifact like this, which is part of the heritage of all Israelis and of the millions of visitors who could view it in the Israel Museum? If it is legal, should it be? Perhaps the Israeli law should be changed. In any event, the Israeli authorities should be investigating

Not a word here about the possibility of a fake or an illegal excavation.

Five years later, Shanks and BAR announced that the Israel Museum had purchased the pomegranate for $550,000 from an anonymous collector in Switzerland. Shanks wrote at the time:

The pomegranate first received widespread attention in the pages of BAR. Without this coverage, the object would have commanded a far lower price. Indeed, the owner undoubtedly made the pomegranate available for BAR’s beautiful color pictures precisely for this purpose—to enhance the value of the artifact by giving it public attention and scholarly confirmation....

BAR participated in this process—at least to the extent of substantially increasing the value of the pomegranate on the illegal antiquities market—by publicizing the find. Yet the alternative was to refrain from telling the world about it. Were we right? Or were we wrong?

Shanks obviously felt he was right. Yet BAR did have the gumption to publish a scathing letter from Ricardo Elia, Director of the Office of Public Archaeology at Boston University. The letter read, in part:

... there can be little doubt that BAR contributed to the problem of illicit looting of Israel’s archaeological heritage.

By publishing an object without provenance, one that was still in a dealer’s hands, and almost certainly (if the object is genuine) the product of illegal looting, BAR played into the hands of the dealer/owner of the object by authenticating the piece, publicizing its supposed importance and thereby increasing its sale value. In effect, BAR provided free consulting services (by authenticating the object) and free advertising to the dealer/owner of this probably stolen antiquity. The result was a half-million-dollar sale, which can only encourage looters (and forgers) to step up their activities [emphasis mine--EMC].

But there is more than enough blame to go around, even if we omit the finder/looter and the dealer/owner, from whom we can expect such behavior. The author of the original article, André Lemaire, should consider his role in encouraging looting when he makes his habitual “rounds of the antiquities dealers,” and when he publishes objects held by dealers knowing full well that they come from an undocumented and, very likely, illegal source.

... In addition, we must honestly communicate the very real possibility that any objects of uncertain provenance may be forgeries; unless proven authentic by physical or chemical tests, let the buyer (and scholar) beware. Ultimately, we will only be able to make a dent in the illegal antiquities trade when the value of an object—to dealers, collectors and scholars alike—is inextricably linked to its provenance and archaeological context.

Had Elia's letter been taken to heart, the entire James Ossuary fiasco could have been avoided, since the same script was played out years later, even with some of the same actors. But it was not taken to heart, and BAR always continued to refer to the pomegranate as the "sole surviving relic of the Solomon's Temple." Will Shanks still do so, now that new examination suggests that it has been forged?

Oded Golan was not involved with the Pomegranate, but it is possible that the case of the Pomegranate inspired forgers and thieves to try their luck, with the prospect of free publicity from BAR and a large museum check waiting at the end of the day. It is time for this to stop.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. Lemaire, "Probable Head of Priestly Scepter from Solomon's Temple Surfaces in Jerusalem," Biblical Archaeology Review 10.1 (1984), pp.24-29; A. Lemaire, “Une inscription paleo-hebraique sur grenade en ivoire,” Revue Biblique 88 (1981), pp. 236–239; H. Shanks, "Was BAR an Accessory to Highway Robbery?" BAR 14.6 (November/December 1988); Elia's letter is found in BAR 15.4 (July/August 1989): "Illegally Excavated Artifacts Should Not Be Published; Lemaire, Cross and Israel Museum Share Blame for Looters." Information on the Ivory Pomegranate can be found here, with the presumption that it is genuine.

UPDATE: My inference about Golan not being involved with the pomegranate is derived from these passages in the New Yorker article by David Samuels.

The pomegranate was purchased on behalf of the museum in 1988 for more than six hundred thousand dollars, by an anonymous collector who was represented by intermediaries for Raffi Brown, an antiquities dealer in Jerusalem and a onetime colleague of Oded Golan and Robert Deutsch.

In February, when I spoke with Brown about the pomegranate, he said, "It came from a French collector, bless his soul, who left it with his brother." Brown ... added, "I saw it first fifteen years earlier, in the seventies. His brother sold it. I showed it to Andre Lemaire on his instructions. The brother sent him to me."

... The Antiquities Authority says that it does not suspect Golan of being involved in the sale of the pomegranate.

I'm not sure what the force of "colleague" is in the above quotation. Does it mean that Brown, like the other two, was an antiquities dealer in Israel, or does it imply a closer collaboration? Presumably, all the details will come out eventually.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: David Samuels, "Written in Stone," New Yorker (April 12, 2004), p. 57.

UPDATE II: A story in the New York times yesterday states that in fact, as I suggested above, Golan and his team have not been charged with forging the pomegranate:

The criminal charges filed Wednesday were the first in the case, and they came just days after the Israel Museum said an independent panel had concluded that the ivory pomegranate, which it bought in 1988 from an unknown seller by depositing half a million dollars in a Swiss bank account, was not authentic.

The pomegranate is believed to date back 3,400 years, but its inscription was added recently, the museum said. The Wednesday indictments cited the pomegranate as an example of a high-profile forgery, but did not charge any of the four suspects with counterfeiting it.

The Forgery Indictments

Biblioblogdom is buzzing with the news of the forgery indictments of Oded Golan and four others (I previously blogged on this issue here).

I was surprised to see that Robert Deutsch was indicted as a co-conspirator. I have always considered his work as somewhat professional, although scarcely within the bounds of propriety, since he has made a reputation by gullibly and imprudently publishing many unprovenanced artifacts. Whether he is actually a propagator of fraud or a victimized scholarly pawn will presumably appear in due course. My guess, or hope, is that he is a pawn. But no matter what, it appears that his career in scholarship is irreversibly tainted. Very sad.

This picture shows Robert Deutsch with Frank Moore Cross.

UPDATE: Further on Robert Deutsch: The following quotations come from the article "Magnificent Obsession: The Private World of an Antiquities Collector" in Biblical Archaeological Review, May/June 1996:

[Deutsch] is devoting his life now to publishing epigraphic finds in private collections, something few field archaeologists would do. Deutsch doesn’t care, however, whether the artifacts he is publishing are looted or not—although he suggests that many if not most were discovered by chance rather than in an illegal excavation. In either case, he is willing to publish them. “To ignore items just because they weren’t found in an excavation run by a university is crazy,” he says. Even if it’s looted? I ask. “I don’t mind. If I found the Bible illegally excavated, I would publish it. The fact is that some important finds do not come from controlled excavations. So what do you want to do with them? Nothing?”
...
Wandering through Jerusalem’s Old City after the Six-Day War, Deutsch remembers seeing all the Arab antiquities dealers—all very legal. Finally, in 1980, Deutsch decided to open up an antiquities shop of his own in colorful Old Jaffa, in south Tel Aviv. He would buy in Jerusalem and sell in Tel Aviv. Eventually, he decided to become an archaeologist and epigrapher, taking courses at Hebrew University and enrolling as a student in Tel Aviv’s Institute of Archaeology. He has participated in a number of digs and will shortly receive his master’s degree. After that, he intends to pursue a Ph.D. Several of his teachers regard him highly.
...
Deutsch himself isn’t worried [about publishing items acquired by looting]. “I don’t have this problem. My name is soiled already because I am an antiquities dealer. Even though I am licensed by the Antiquities Authority, it doesn’t matter. My name is soiled. So I cannot soil it more. Everything I am doing now can only add to my name.”

Some of the inscriptions first published by Deutsch include the bulla with the name of King Ahaz on it, the Moussaieff Ostraca, and many bronze Phoenician arrowheads hailed with enthusiasm by scholars as reputable as P. Kyle McCarter. In fact, of all the 50 or so inscribed Phoenician arrowheads so far published, only one has been discovered in a controlled excavation; many of the rest, acquired on the illegal antiquities market, were first published by Deutsch.

The implications of these indictments, especially if followed by convictions, are enormous. It is not an overstatement to say that biblical archaeology may require a generation of disciplined, rigorous re-examination of all unprovenanced epigraphic material in order to be regarded again as a scientific discipline.

UPDATE II: Jim Davila has a good follow-up on the story of the indictments; Jim West also has found an interesting article. Seth Sanders has good observations and quite properly points us to the work of Christopher Rollston. I note that when I point my browser to Robert Deutsch's website, all the content has been erased. Is it just me?

Repent, Hershel!

In the wake of the forgery indictments, it is time for Hershel Shanks and his publishing empire to do a little soul-searching. With the evidence mounting that the James Ossuary is a forgery, that the Jehoash tablet is a forgery, that the Ivory Pomegranate is a forgery, that the Moussaieff Ostraca are forgeries, that many Israelite bullae are forgeries, shouldn't Shanks, who has featured all these items prominently in Biblical Archaeology Review, start to feel a little remorse? Kudos to Jim West for being the first to raise this question.

Shanks will undoubtedly say that he is a journalist, he only reports on what reputable scholars say. And it is true that many reputable scholars have written on these objects in the pages of BAR. But would they have done so without Shanks's encouragement? Although he claims to be neutral concerning the authenticity of the controversial objects, he has a stake in prolonging discussion of them. Controversy sells magazines. And the lure of the BAR spotlight is becoming too tempting for many to turn away from. (FULL DISCLOSURE: I have written an article for BAR in the past, although not on any of these artifacts.)

The cycle is becoming all too clear: the forgers depend on the collectors for their livelihood, the collectors depend on scholarship to validate their finds, and all of them depend on media sensation to drive their careers and activities forward. Although I don't believe Shanks has connived at any kind of fraud, he is one major enabler of the whole messy business. He is the P.T. Barnum of ancient epigraphy.

Shanks has also done much good in bringing the discipline of archaeology to many with a gorgeously-produced magazine. In the early '90's, he played an important role in the liberation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and gave a significant platform to those who were the conscience of the discipline. Unfortunately, that whole affair had two ill effects: (1) it gave Shanks and BAR a lot of power within the media and among scholars; and (2) it produced a narrative that Shanks has been busy trying to reproduce ever since: "the Establishment is trying to put the lid on an important discovery, but a few brave souls are willing to be mavericks and risk everything to bring new light to the masses."

It is time for Shanks to realize the damage that he has helped to cause in the discipline of biblical archaeology. Although it is true that significant finds in the past have occasionally come from the antiquities markets, it appears in recent years that the tail has begun to wag the dog. I do not believe this would have been possible without the support of Shanks and BAR.

I call on Shanks to (1) stop accepting ads from antiquities dealers, (2) admit that he has gone too far in his enthusiasm for questionable and illegally-obtained artifacts, and (3) refuse to spotlight unprovenanced artifacts in his magazine until after they have undergone rigorous testing by a wide array of scholars. Only in this way can he begin to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

The NYT on Alter's New Translation of the Torah

The New York Times reviews Robert Alter's "The Five Books of Moses: A Translation With Commentary." An excerpt:

Religious belief has traditionally treated the Bible as a coherent, divinely inspired historical document. But in the 19th century, German philology began an archaeological excavation of the text, discerning in its varied styles, its different terms for God and its expressions of opposing interests, the hands of four authors who wrote their accounts over the course of centuries - multiple sources out of which redactors created the pastiche we now read.

For a century, philological research laid bare the biblical text, illuminating its crevices, dating its shards, explicating its contradictions. After millennia of religious commentary by Jewish and Christian scholars, this was a form of secular compensation. Philology turned the Bible into a text about its own construction.

But Mr. Alter, beginning with "The Art of Biblical Narrative" (1981), undertook an extraordinarily powerful project of restoration. The redactors, he claimed, were not merely curators: they were creators. Their choice of words, their juxtaposition of passages, their respect for ambiguities - nothing was arbitrary. But the Bible is not just a religious masterwork, Mr. Alter argued; it is also a literary one: pay close attention to the text and it will yield its secrets. Out of perceived patterns, analysis of word usage and attention to rhythm, insights into character and narrative and purpose will emerge.

Registration is required to read the whole thing. (If you're reluctant to register for fear of spam: I haven't been, but I don't know if this is typical.)

This Just In: Blogosphere is Growing

Seth Sanders of the University of Chicago has been assimilated. His new blog is Serving the Word, described as "The Hebrew Bible and related matters ancient and modern, through the lenses of philology, anthropological linguistics and political theology. "

The Tsunamis and Theodicy: Remembering Lisbon, 1755

The news from South Asia continues to be very bad. I will assume you know where to go for the news.

There is a possibility that the tsunami disaster may become the Lisbon earthquake of our time. In 1755, an earthquake of similar magnitude (estimated 9.0) to the Sumatran earthquake struck off the coast of Portugal; the loss of life from the earthquake, fire, and tsunamis exceeded 60,000. Europe was traumatized, and many began to question the goodness of the Providence of God, most notably Voltaire in "Candide."

The bloggers at Mirror of Justice have asked for responses:

It seems to me that if we want a moral anthropology rooted in the Incarnation to be taken seriously, we must try to offer an explanation of a world in which tsunamis rip children from their mothers' arms.

I will leave this task to others, not because theodicy is impossible or offensive, but because I would do it as badly as Job's comforters did. Plus, I just don't feel up to it; I feel considerable sympathy today with those who ask "why?"

I will give this link to an article by Richard Swinburne, in my opinion the greatest living Christian philosopher. It is a demanding article; he's a real philosopher in the analytic tradition. But this final paragraph is clear enough:

A theodicist is in a better position to defend a theodicy such as I have outlined if he is prepared also to make the further additional claim — that God knowing the worthwhileness of the conquest of evil and the perfecting of the universe by men, shared with them this task by subjecting himself as man to the evil in the world. A creator is more justified in creating or permitting evils to be overcome by his creatures if he is prepared to share with them the burden of the suffering and effort.

World Vision is mobilizing relief efforts, as are many others.

UPDATE: Mirror of Justice summarizes responses here. See also a thought-provoking post from Ann Althouse.

New Tools for Targum Study

New electronic tools are now available for Targum study. Those who use Palm Pilot can now add Targumic texts to their reader at the website of the Newsletter for Targum and Cognate Studies.

Also, the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon website has added a useful new utility to their already indispensable Targum Studies module: this page, which enables the user to match up words in the Hebrew Bible with their equivalents in the Targumim, and vice versa.

Both tools are the work of Hebrew Union College grad student David Everson. Thanks, David!

Another Vote for M. R. James

I want to add my voice to the recommendations of the works of M. R. James from Jim Davila and Mark Goodacre. I have long cherished James's ghost stories, especially Ghost Stories of an Antiquary, which is still in print. In fact, attentive readers of my Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls will have observed that I use a quotation from the story "Oh, Whistle and I'll Come To You, My Lad" to introduce a discussion of the Sadducees.

A new collection has been published by Oxford UP, Casting the Runes and Other Ghost Stories (more info here). The introduction is by Michael Chabon, well known in the USA as the Pulitzer-prize winning author of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. (He also wrote Wonder Years and worked on the screenplay for Spider-Man II.) His introduction to the James anthology can be read here.

As noted in the links above, James was in his day a scholar of some importance, and his works are still valuable. I particularly enjoy this essay about manuscript-hunting, and the sentence therein about the sinister Dr. John Dee is priceless:

The main facts of his life that concern us are that he lived at Mortlake, and in 1584 went on a wild journey to Poland. In his absence his house and collections were plundered by a mob, who, not without excuse, thought him a warlock.

A rich site for those interested in M. R. James is Ghosts & Scholars. Enjoy.

The Asian Disaster

The world is in a state of shock at the death toll from the earthquake and its tidal waves in Sumatra, Sri Lanka, South India, and elsewhere. I have nothing to add of value to the news reports available elsewhere. Destructive events of this kind, in addition to raising all the questions of the universe, tend to frustrate even my prayers, and I am reduced to a wordless sursum corda.

Also, I wish that other words could be found than "biblical disaster" for this event, but it seems regrettably to be apt, as in this report from the Washington Post (registration required):

Within minutes, the beach and the area behind it had become an inland sea that rushed over the road and poured into the flimsy houses on the other side. The speed with which it all happened seemed like a scene from the Bible, a natural phenomenon unlike anything I had experienced.

As the waters rose at an incredible rate, I half expected to catch sight of Noah's Ark.

Instead of the ark, I grabbed a wooden catamaran that the local people used as a fishing boat. My brother jumped on the boat next to me. We bobbed up and down on the catamaran as the water rushed past us into the village beyond the road.

Beyond our words, thoughts, and wordless prayers, we can give concrete help. Suggestions from the Red Cross are found here.

UPDATE: More ways to help are found here and here.

Who Put the Bin in Osama Bin Laden?

My knowledge of Arabic is, regrettably, rudimentary, consisting of one semester of formal study, supplemented by unsystematic factoids acquired along the way in a career devoted mainly to other Semitic languages. However, I do know that the Arabic word for "son," at least in its dictionary form, is "ibn." Therefore why is it "Osama Bin Laden," and not "Osama Ibn Laden"? (Actually you can find via Google a few hundred cases of "Osama Ibn Laden," far outnumbered by the million or so for the "bin" form.)

I thought I had this figured out. Here's what I was thinking: In Arabic the consonant (glottal stop) that carries the sound /i/ in "ibn," is the "hamzatul wasl," which is not etymologically original to the word. It disappears when preceded by a vowel. You can see the hamza disappear in another famous Arabic name, wherein "Abdu al-Jabbar" (Servant of the Almighty) becomes "Abdu-l-Jabbar." In the instance of OBL, the expected "Osama Ibn" becomes "Osama Bn," which by the additional process of anaptyxis (i.e., insertion of a helping vowel; see previous post on The Joys of Anaptyxis) becomes "Osama Bin." Ta-da!

But then I read here:

In colloquial Arabic in the Persian Gulf, the word meaning “son of” is pronounced “bin,” not “ibn,” when it refers to a family name. Hence, the popular Romanization conveys the pronunciation “bin,” and not “ibn.”

All right, that makes sense. The Arabic vernaculars are often pretty different from the Standard Arabic that I was semi-educated in, so I have to accept this. Still, wouldn't the Evil One wish to be known by a Standard or Hocharabisch name, and not by a colloquial form? Or do the colloquial and standard simply merge in this case?

At this point we reach an abrupt end of my Arabic knowledge. If any of my readers can give me an authoritative opinion, I would be very grateful: Who put the Bin in Osama Bin Laden? (My wife told me, "Honey, I can't imagine anyone being interested in this." C'mon, folks, prove her wrong!)