spin

Try it in stone, Haran. You are plain stonewalling. Can you get better than what the scribe has done to get an indication of a horn? Obviously not. You want the improbable so as to have a sign of a formal letter. The thing you miss is that we have a good scribe, but not in stone. He might not get his angles right, but he will correct his proceedings.

The one thing that you can claim is that it is not of the right height, and even that is not a clear indicator, if we can trust Altman and her claim that texts were often written in sound groups.

You have failed to account for the shape of the PE when you try to say that it is informal. Why does it have its angle where a horn would be found on parchment?

Well, obviously superfluous if I am not in the position to follow up on your claims. That's why I wrote the first paragraph in the message you are responding to in which I demurred on the subject of text final flourishes. You remember that, don't you Haran?

Oh, yes, it was, wasn't it.

Did you read the first sentence of my previous message? No. (See below for a repeat.)

So you are attempting to make conclusive judgments on a stamp sized photo of an inscription, especially when you see two sets of indications and you ignore the one more like the second PE. Well done.

As I said at the beginning of my last message As I won't be getting my hands on Rahmani, I'll demur to you on the inscription final flourish.

I think you're inventing your understanding of the scratchings to be seen in the photo, but you claim to have other examples in Rahmani, so be it.

Good, now that you've got that off your chest and perhaps you're got what I said at the beginning of my last message clear we can move ahead.

I do understand the logic. (However, as I've said for a couple of messages now, the first umm YOD looks extremely similar to the final ALEF. And let me further ask, how do you get Caiaphas out of QP'?)

Just a little grammar lesson: in English there is no explicitly impersonal form of the verb. One usually uses "you", though there is the formal vestige "one". I'm sorry for your confusion.

I never complained that it wasn't an AYIN.

Not wrong, Haran. Just not communicative enough for you. The point of the HET in the Uzziah inscription was to show you what the expected horns of the HET in the second part of our inscription should be if the scribe were attempting a formal inscription. The HET itself is of a different formal font, but it is an indication of what was necessary in the formal style we are supposedly looking at. It looks like the informal HETs in the transcription of the Shimi inscription. The HET is not formal.

This is where we differ. At least one YOD and the final PE fit the category to me. The YOD with the tittle and the PE with the point where one would expect the horn. But I need a better photo before dismissing any of the other letters. The variance of the letters of the second half is apparent from the photos we have. That should be sufficient indication of the difference between the two parts.

You don't have Yardeni with you. Look at the inscription.

As you refuse to deal with the obvious intent of the scribe given the medium, I don't think you are being fair to the inscription.

No, of course not. The BETs and the RESH are just flukes of artifice and the scribe just happened to get them right, but then falls back into making not a normal informal DALET, but an exceedingly strange one.

I think, if you are going to say this there is little point in continuing. I think you are just inventing for argument's sake.

Excuse B. Don't get confused by the shadows in your first picture. The best we can do is to use both picture angles.

Unless of course there is a similar depth to the letters of the first half, setting a useful indication, but then you want to see varying depths.

Mon cher, there is more to be said than just the bald retort.

Try to make a precise horn using the scribe's tool. You are not dealing with the scribe's intent. You have simply ignored it. Intent is important when dealing with an inscription. Look at the Copper Scroll, again a difficult medium, but you work with the scribe's intent to understand the forms of his letters. Do so with this inscription and don't just expect book perfection, unless you can do it yourself in stone.

You are making a lot of the dropped PE for want of much else. I've already said it is the one thing you can point at, but having looked at the argument that Altman makes referring to other inscriptions (found in the Historical Jesus section here, see page 3, "C) WRITING: THE VISUAL TAPE-RECORDING"), she sees a trend to indicate "sound bites". You can check it out in Rahmani for examples (she gives #865) and perhaps can give a critique.

So you can see a general similarity in depth in the first part. It's just the PE which causes problems, hmm?

That "progressively" still hinges on the PE. That is no progression at all.

Regarding the tittled YOD

But what do you want, a lambda shaped YOD? That is not the font.

What I said in the previous message:

The initial YOD I can't see clearly enough, but it is not a simple short straight downstroke. It is clearly larger at the top.

If you have a better photo, why don't you post it? If not, why are you making your definitive statements?

On the AYIN:

What exactly would you like from this AYIN? Could you describe what it misses according to your expectations?

I've looked at your Uzziah photo and have searched for better ones without success. I can't see what you are referring to as serifs on the AYIN.

Whoever did the Uzziah inscription was a much better artisan in stone than those on the James inscription.

You've talked rot about the RESH and the BETs, shown no inclination to see the PE for what is written (with its upper right point where one would expect a horn) and not what you would like it to be, not explained the difference in work between the two YODs and that of Yeshua. As to Altman and Chadwick, let's add a few more:

And numerous others are available on request. (It's funny what you find when searching for better photos.)

What exactly is not just true?

The ALEF is not even the Jericho style of ALEF (diagonal top left to bottom right with curved stroke pointing upward from the right of the middle of the diagonal). The diagonal stroke is not a straight line but has an obvious large kink in it. It even seems to have a small tail to the bottom left. From what font is this ALEF, Haran??

Thanks.

The break that you need is some evidence for your claims. You point out the rarity of the DALET. Fine. You say inconsistent things about the BETs and RESH. Fine. You don't acknowledge the point at the top right of the PE which is where you would expect a horn. Fine. What you have presented doesn't seem to deal with the inscription itself.

This is you telling me you have Rahmani yet again. It is not sufficient to say that a letter shape exists. You have to attempt some consistency in usage, whixh you haven't started to do.

That's a nice assertion.

Ahh, Rahmani strikes again!

Until you can look at this inscription and deal with its consistencies and inconsistencies, you just stonewall.

Are you published in semitic paleography? Correct me if I'm wrong on this though. Chadwick is just an academic at BYU, who has done some work in ancient texts. But go for the argument not the qualification.

You have indicated that you have Rahmani and perhaps photocopies of sections of Yardeni. What else have you referred to (in the "all but one")?

What I have seen from you is your ignoring indications of scribal intent, efforts by the scribe to compensate for slight errors, efforts by the scribe to maintain depth and form. You have not once here addressed scribal intent in the forms of the letters. You have slavishly compared to other inscriptions in Rahmani and not tried to deal with the artifact as it may have been produced.

I think it best that you give up here, because you do not address these things. You justify rare forms, because they exist they have to be accepted in this inscription, whose second half according to your indications is a collection of rare forms. You accept that there is a change from first part to second part -- at least in depth -- and you accept that at least four letters in the first part show consistency of form and I debate with you for many of the rest.

You can see minor adjustments in the directions of lines in the AYIN, the QOF, the first BET, probably the SAMEK, and the PE in order to retain a general shape. No such adjustments to maintain shape can be seen in the second part. Compensation shows the scribe at work, but only in the first half.

Let's add that your photos both show a darker area which includes all of the first part of the inscription and the ALEF though not the space after it. This I gather is the indication that there once was a border around the inscription, which has now become the first part.

You have just promoted a mixed ensemble of letters in the second half as being part of an integral inscription through such claims as their being a progressive worsening of letters through out the text -- which you have never justified.

I have withdrawn the argument regarding the text final flourish because I don't have your book. The rest of your response doesn't deal with our inscription so much as what you can force it to fit in your external literature.


spin

Haran

The posts have gotten large and fragmented to where points are easily lost. Let me be more succint in wrapping up, spin:

* You appear to claim that the supposed "first half" is mostly formal and that an abrupt change occurs after the PE and the last half is informal indicating two hands for the inscription.

* I claim that there is no clear and obvious paleographical division of the inscription, only four letters of the first half are truly formal with serifs and the rest should be (I've given relevant examples of how these letters should look from other ossuaries and from respected paleographic texts), and that the inscription changes from right to left as the script becomes less formal and haphazard. I also deny unsupported claims such as inscriptions being written in "sound bites" and final letters not having extensions in the middle of inscriptions until such a time as someone is able to present me with a scholarly text indicating such to be the case or is able to provide enough examples to establish a recurring and obvious pattern (to this point, scholars in the relevant fields, whom I have contacted, have not been aware of texts that support these claims).

* Finally and most importantly (and something I feel has been ignored), I've given relevant examples from other ossuaries of the time period (specifcally 293, inter alia) that show a similarity to the James inscription in that they contain formality in the beginning (with serifs) and become less formal (without serifs) and the text begins to fall from the upper and lower scribal lines. My stance is backed by scholarly paleographical texts (rather than online information) and examples from other ossuaries of the relevant time period (rather than information gleaned from the web).

In any attempt to analyze an inscription, other examples must be brought into play. One cannot simply judge one inscription on its own merits or demerits, it must be examined in context (i.e. against other ossuaries from the same time period - in this case the Second Temple Period). I have done so. At this point, scholarly paleographical texts and examples must be dealt with and pointed toward, and not doing so, one must admit being at a loss to fully explain or understand the inscription.

leonarde

Partial repost of statement by Lupia already posted by Vorkosigan (emphasis added) I assume that Lupia misspoke/miswrote here.......he thinks the physical aspects preclude that it could be anything BUT a forgery....

Cheers!

Vorkosigan

Yes, he miswrote.

Vorkosigan

spin

The first thing one has to do when dealing with the palaeography of a text is refer to the text itself, analyse how it was written, what we can learn about the scribe or scribes. It is only after doinf so that one should turn to other examples in order to explain the phenomena seen in the inscription under analysis.

Haran has consistently turned first to other inscriptions before attempting to explain what can be seen in our text. This is counterproductive in method, for one doesn't learn about the scribal activity on the particular inscription before seeing how it fits with other examples.

Haran claims that there is a progressive worsening of the hand from right to left, a progression that I cannot see. He claims for example that the PE is not a formal letter, yet even the most diehard exponent of the inscription's genuineness, Andre Lemaire, explains that the PE "can be considered as formal even if it appears sometimes in cursive." (See his article "Ossuary Update" on the BAR site.) It should then mean that we only have contentions over the forms of the YODs and WAWs in the first part of our inscription. I, like many other people, see the two YODs to be formal because each has a small tittle at the top (ie a small cut in the stone before the downstroke). (See for example Jeffrey Chadwick at the Bible and Interpretation site. Lemaire does not agree with this contention.)

What should be plain is that in the first half there is no change of script whatsoever, no worsening (except if we count the height of the PE), for the script is basically formal from YOD to PE, with the possible exception of the two WAWs, though Chadwick's drawings of the letters have tittles. The font is basically uniform.

However, there is no consistent font at all in the second part of the inscription, for there are some letters which are formal and others cursive, some were found in inscriptions from Jerusalem and others from elsewhere. Here Haran introduces the fact that there are other inscriptions which are not consistent in their font usage. While this is interesting, the implied conclusion is that the same scribe was responsible for the two parts of the inscription, yet to be able to conclude this one has to see not the differences in the letters but the similarities. Naturally it is possible for a scribe to go from neat efforts at letters to very sloppy ones, but one doesn't expect the scribe, who has shown a persistence and a certain uniformity at the formation of his letters, to form letters so wildly that they reflect some of the least frequent forms found in the corpus of Palestinian epigraphy from the period.

We can see how the scribe works in the first half of the inscription, having some difficulty working in stone, yet not prepared to let letters come out just any way, for he compensates for any errors of angle. His intent is clear: he wants to form well-shaped letters. There is no sign of such intent in the second half of the inscription. If the scribe is in a hurry he will start being imprecise with the formation of his letters, but it is unlikely that he will form letters he doesn't usually form. A degradation of form doesn't imply a wildly incoherent set of letters. Haran is clearly wrong in his attempts to imply that the discordant letters are just a matter of the scribe reverting to a lax means of writing.

He has not come to terms with the traits of the scribe, which are seen in the first eleven letters, consistent depth, consistent hand, but because of the inconsistency of the second part he doesn't want to admit the traits of the scribe as shown in the first half of the inscription.

That there is a distinct change from the first part to the second is also indicated by a change in the colour of the stone surface. The first part is darker than the second, showing where the surface had been prepared for the inscription. As not all the inscription was written on a prepared surface, that which wasn't was clearly added later. This can be seen in the difference between the two parts of the inscription.

There is no saving this text as a whole. The second part, added later, is clearly a forgery. Any efforts to try to resurrect its genuineness for whatever purposes is only catering to further production of such forgeries.


spin

Haran

Though I've said all I can say in dealing first with the inscription (contra Spin) and second with the examples, I will state one final time that I stand by my conclusions.

I thought I'd leave off with a few quotes from some of the IAA committee scholars who dealt with the inscription. I do not agree with all of their conclusions (which means I realize that some of their claims are different from mine), but some of them interest me greatly:

Professor Reich stated that his methodology was to assume authenticity unless convined by his own observations or those of his comittee. He states that his committee did not convince him. The determining factor, for him, was the geology.

Hmm... Here we have the "two hands" theory, but it is quite different than what others have claimed. But the fact that two scholars felt it necessary to point this out shows that even the supposed "first half" of the inscription does not appear to be completely uniform.

Though the ossuary inscription may very well be a forgery (and I hope we actually find this out in the near future), I have serious problems trusting the conclusions of some of the committee members (many of whom seem and have seemed quite biased to me). I believe that with a comparison of paleographic examples, one can show that the inscription does not necessarily have to have been in two hands and that its authenticity cannot truly be judged by the paleography. All one has to do is look at the many differing opinions of scholars with respect to the inscription. The only one who has surprised me with his conclusion is McCarter (whom I respect), however, I have not seen a detalied analysis from him. I shall look forward to reading, in more depth, about how he came to his conclusions.

Vorkosigan

Haran -- doesn't the fact that there are many different opinions scare the daylights out of you? It does me.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Yes, very much so... Somtimes I truly wonder if anyone really knows anything at all.

spin

It's interesting that Haran should quote two archaeologists and an art restorer as commentators on the palaeography of the James inscription. Surely he could find a few palaeographers?

It is also interesting that he refuses to deal with what can be known of scribe at least in the first part of the inscription. He has avoided the scribe's cautious approach to his letters in the first part and the scribe's desire to get the letters right as shown by his compensating for wayward angles in his letters. Strangely there is no sign of these things in the second part at all.

It's also interesting that he doesn't mention the fact that the first part of the inscription is done on dressed stone while the second part isn't.

I guess he has no answers to them.

Naturally Haran sticks by his desire that the palaeography is in some way coherent of a single scribe. How he can maintain that beats me, because the differences are numerous.


spin

Haran

All I can say at this point is ...whatever...

I've dealt with the inscription and your supposed analysis. I am of the opinion that you are unfamiliar with paleography, important paleographical textbooks, and examples. If you had once studied paleography and truly knew the material, you should be familiar with the names of script styles and should be able to point to examples (Cross said this in ..., I remember Yardeni said that...). If you are merely rusty and think you know more than I do, then the only way you're going to convince me is by showing me your familiarity with the texts and examples. So far you have not done this. Until then...