Forgery Assistance for Jerry Vardaman in Jerusalem?
In answer to Peter Kirby
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=182852#p182852
Peter Kirby » Tue Dec 10, 2024 1:33 am
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2024 10:02 pm What that means is that noting that Jerry Vardaman (with possible support at times from Nikos Kokkinos and definite support even today from Ronald L. Conte) is generally considered delusional in his chronology interpretations based on micro-letters, "micrographic letters". Vardaman was seeing stuff that was not there, and then using what he "saw" as evidence for his chronology. Not a good look.
From an unbiased perspective, this shows that he didn't create a fake.
His thing is weird micro-letter interpretations instead of forgeries.
=======================================
Google seach
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q="tuccinardi"+"jerusalem"+"forgery"+"vardaman"
===========================
Pt. 5: The case for forgery
Rene Salm (2013)
https://www.mythicistpapers.com/2013/08/18/pt-5-the-case-for-forgery/
The center of the antiquities trade in Israel has always been Jerusalem. It would have been very easy for E. Jerry Vardaman to consult with one or more dealers while he was in Israel during the 1962 excavation season. A circumstance now presents itself in a new light: three weeks before the discovery of the “Nazareth” fragment, Vardaman left the excavations in Caesarea and went to Jerusalem for several days. Furthermore, Vardaman’s entries into his excavation notebook virtually cease for the two weeks preceding the discovery of fragment A, and during that long period his whereabouts are unknown.
Reconstruction of Vardaman’s activity during the 1962 Caesarea excavation season
Mythicist Papers - Resources for the study of Christian origins
www.mythicistpapers.com
Regarding forgery, Vardaman had motive, knowledge, opportunity, and access. He had
motive as a born-again conservative Christian whose morality was relative: if it helps “Jesus” then it’s okay. He had
knowledge as a longtime excavator/scholar in Israel-Jordan, with intimate acquaintance of the Jerusalem market in antiquities and, no doubt, also of the forgery market. Vardaman had
opportunity in that he made at least one special trip to Jerusalem (July 20–21) only three weeks before the “discovery” of the fragment A. Finally, he had unrestricted access to the site as director of the area of excavation in which the Nazareth fragment A was found.
====
Scandal 9
The 1962 forgery of the so-called “Caesarea inscription”
Rene Salm (2013)
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalnine.html
However, it was clear that both the circumstances of discovery of the “Caesarea inscription”, as well as the character of the discoverer were suspicious. To this I soon added a detailed timetable of Vardaman’s activity during the 1962 excavation season. He was absent from the excavations for long stretches of time, his whereabouts unknown. He was in Jerusalem at least once. Most curious, he left the excavation one week early and precisely on the day in which the “Nazareth” fragment was found. All this was remarkably suspicious in that it would fit the profile of someone who (1) engaged a forger in Jerusalem to produce the fragment A, and (2) someone who was relieved of his excavation permit on the same day as the “Nazareth” fragment was found.
The clincher lay for me in a statement from Wright’s 1972 letter. In it he says that “[Vardaman’s] attempt to dig at Caesarea some years ago was quietly stopped when the word was passed to the appropriate Israeli authorities.” Here was clear indication that the reason Vardaman left the excavation suddenly and prematurely was that the Israeli authorities quietly intervened. That was the very day of discovery of the “Nazareth” fragment. Evidently, someone in a position of influence was obviously suspicious and alerted the authorities. We must remember that Vardaman already had a history of bribery and of entanglement with the Jordanian police. The Israeli authorities in this instance took no chances and quickly removed Vardaman from the excavation.
There can no longer be any doubt regarding the genesis of the “Nazareth” fragment A of the so-called “Caesarea inscription” (an inscription which we can now affirm never existed). Prof. E. Jerry Vardaman arranged for it to be forged in Jerusalem during the weeks prior to August 14, 1962. He then planted the forged fragment A in an excavation basket or wheelbarrow laden with debris destined for the dump. Vardaman casually directed a worker (Shalom Attieh) to sift through the wheelbarrow ‘one more time,’ and in this way the Nazareth fragment was “discovered.” Vardaman then brought the astonishing fragment—important enough to influence early Christian history—to the immediate attention of the excavation director, Michael Avi-Yonah, and to the attention of everyone else. However, someone knowledgeable of Vardaman’s compromised history was suspicious. He alerted the authorities who intervened and immediately removed Vardaman from the excavation, one week early.
============================
Evidence for first-century Nazareth?
BCHF - Ficino
https://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=6006#p6006
S&T theorize as well that Vardaman worked with a forger in Jerusalem on days on which his diary showed him as absent from the excavation. They theorize that he planted the forged piece among already-dug rubble. Then, as he wrote, V. directed Shalom Attiah to sift through the rubble carefully a second time.
============================
Rene Salm
The 1962 Forgery of the "Caesarea Inscription" - (2015)
https://www.academia.edu/95426473/The_1962_Forgery_of_the_Caesarea_Inscription_
DETAILS
It is possible, though unlikely, that the informant was someone in the field who actually witnessed the sleight of hand which resulted in the “Nazareth” fragment entering Attiah’s wheelbarrow on August 14.52 More likely, however, is that someone already acquainted with Vardaman’s propensity for foul play (perhaps, like Wright, a co-participant in the Shechem excavations of the mid-50s) had some incriminating information on the “Nazareth” fragment that he promptly shared with the authorities. It is also possible that the incriminating information did not derive from the excavation site at all, but leaked out from Jerusalem where the fragment would in all likelihood have been forged. In this case, no informant in Caesarea would be required. The authorities could simply have been waiting to see if Vardaman actually produced the forgery (thus committing a crime). When he did, they pounced
* Friday, July 20–Saturday July 21. A two-day lacuna in Vardaman’s field notes ensues and the next entry (see below) surprisingly begins: “Back at Caesarea; somewhat late because only left Jerusalem at 2:00 a.m.” Thus Vardaman left Caesarea for Jerusalem after the day of digging on the 19th, or possibly early on the 20th. In any case, there would have
been no excavation work on the sabbath (the 21st). He returns to work in Caesarea on Sunday the 22nd (the beginning of the Jewish week). Vardaman’s reason for going to Jerusalem is unknown. This is only the first of several possible trips to Jerusalem during his tenure in Caesarea
AND MORE
===================================
