Talk:Baruch ben Neriah

Historicity
Rollston et. al do not discuss the 1975 bulla at all, and Goren says it has not been lab tested, though he did imply that it could be questioned on the same paleographic grounds as the 1996 bulla. Perhaps, "Some commentators have questioned the authenticity of both bullae" is not precisely warranted by the cited references. &mdash;Hanina

This paper https://www.academia.edu/10134823/The_Authenticity_of_the_Bullae_of_Berekhyahu_Son_of_Neriyahu_the_Scribe appears to conclude that the bullae are forgeries: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.247.158 (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Grave: This section seems to be made of nothing more than myth; is it the place of a reputable reference source to cite myth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.239.121.86 (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't dug up anything definitive, but the bulla generally seem to be accepted as fakes by now. Here is one source actually saying why: https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?ArticleId=292. Somebody should probably update this. I don't even know the etiquette for talk pages, let alone articles. It just happened to be in my field of interest, so I thought I'd say something. 2607:FB90:33F:30F8:C93F:918E:7C64:F7D3 (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)