BAR’s Bias- Again

Since H. Shanks and B. Witherington are virtually the only two people on the planet who still insist that the inscription on the so called ‘James Ossuary’ is authentic it is unsurprising in the extreme that their ‘coverage’ of the trial of the century lauds not the report of Yuval Goren and the work of many others who have clearly shown that the inscription is bogus but instead Jack Kilmon’s. In their email newsletter BAR gleefully writes

According to independent scholar Jack Kilmon, the admission of Tel Aviv University’s Yuval Goren that ancient patina was in “Yeshua” (“Jesus”) “shattered the forgery claim and the entire case … The entire case was a hack job fostered by the Israel Antiquities Authority … Someone’s head should roll.

Then the newsletter points to Jack’s take on things. What I find interesting is that they write

Statement of Jack Kilmon, independent researcher, as edited with the author’s permission from a posting on the blog of Jim West: The forgery case will be dropped.

Why I find that interesting is that they a) never got my permission to post Jack’s remarks on the BAR site and even more interestingly, they b) never provide a link to the post where Jack’s comment appears. I wonder why? Well, no, I don’t. I know exactly why: BAR refuses to cite sources as respectable and honorable persons do.

[Do note, however, that I have in fact linked to BAR’s Jack Hijacking because that’s what decent people do. Unlike BAR, I’m not afraid to point readers to other sites. BAR, tellingly, is afraid to. Their BAR-ian Bias is on exhibition for all those who ‘have an eye to see’ and in that respect are very much like several well known bibliobloggers].

Maybe BAR should pay attention to my license requirements which are clearly displayed on the right nav panel-

Creative Commons License
Zwinglius Redivivus by Jim West is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

About Jim

I am a Pastor, and Lecturer in Church History and Biblical Studies at Ming Hua Theological College.
This entry was posted in Archaeology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to BAR’s Bias- Again

  1. Niels Peter Lemche says:

    well, well, Hershwell is almost too easy to read: it’s all about money. Maybe he paid for the fake?


    • Jim says:

      the defense of the authenticity of the thing can probably be traced to monetary considerations. maybe a new ‘we told ya so’ book is already ready for publication and will appear the day after the judge renders his verdict. a judge who knows nothing about the issues by his own admission and who appears to be more persuaded by something other than the truth.


  2. Joe says:

    That is the norm for BAR and its coverage of the trial. E.G. When Shanks wrote the Lying Scholars article and published the photo of the dealer ‘who never heard of me’ standing together, he never credited the photographer whom had taken the photo until this day, nor did he disclose that he and another leading figure at BAR had spoken to the photographer who let it be known that I had introduced him to the dealer as his German wife claimed to be a neurosurgeon. She was lying. Moreover, the published photo of Emile Puech was pirated and the French photographer cried foul as there was no accreditation nor payment. He, in effect, published two photos in the same article without credit nor payment. He later paid the French photographer a nice sum evidently hoping to keep things quiet.


  3. bobcargill says:

    i find it highly ironic that many scholarly bloggers make it a point to report on and link to all sides of debates (favorable and unfavorable, agreeable and disagreeable), while some magazines not only ignore, but at times deliberately distort and often fail to cite information pertinent to an issue that it finds inconvenient or disagreeable.

    either many scholarly blogs now possess more journalistic integrity than some magazines passing themselves off as ‘journalists’ and/or ‘archaeologists,’ or said magazines never possessed said qualities to begin with.


  4. Duane says:


    Independent of BAR’s prejudices or positions, I think you should formally assert your rights under your Creative Commons license. I’d write (email followed by snail mail) Mr. Shanks immediately, informing him that he must cease the use of, delete and retract any material taken from your site and used commercially (which is all of it). I would further inform him that once he has complied with that minimum requirement, you would be pleased to enter into a royalty-based agreement to compensate you for any and all violations of your Creative Commons license. Speak to him in a language he understands, legalese.

    If we don’t actively enforce our licenses, who will?


  5. Doug says:

    Do it doc, notify them of their violation and tell them they are in violation of your creative commons license. You should do it, can’t let anyone run over that license.


  6. Luke says:

    Why I find that interesting is that they a) never got my permission to post Jack’s remarks on the BAR site and even more interestingly, they b) never provide a link to the post where Jack’s comment appears.

    per A) I don’t think they need your permission since you’re not the author of the comment, I think they’d need Jack’s permission, I assume that’s who BAR is referring to when they say they got the authors permission.

    per B) I agree, they’re in poor form.


    • Jim says:

      im not a lawyer (thank God!) so i dont know the intricacies of legal dogma, but it seems to me that if someone posts a comment here, it becomes, in a sense, connected to the content here. and if integrated into the content, then ultimately under my jurisdiction and control. were it not for my content, there would be no comment. were it not for my approval, there would be no comment.


  7. Luke says:

    That is true, in a sense, you have the right to publish the comment on your blog (I’d say that it’s just expected: see eff comment). But authors own copyrights see here.

    *IANAL nor have I played one on TV I’ve just read enough about copyright due to the GPL, CC and stuff that Lawrence Lessig has written to make an informed guess. Peace


Comments are closed.