spin

So you still have nothing to say about the scribe. And you are back to repeating the crap about the big names.

I am familiar enough with the fonts, though I have been away from all references since May last year. Remember though it's not what Cross or Yardeni says. It's always evidence. (And I'm not happy with Cross's almost universally accepted terminology regarding the Jewish fonts of the period, so forgive me if I don't use them. One should not, for example, give a date based name to a font until it is clear that it is appropriate.)

Your job is to look at how the scribe works first and foremost. And you refuse. What point is there to cloud the issue with such stuff as yours above? You want evidence about me, not about the script. When you want to look at the inscription again, let me know.

Till then avoid the evidence:

1) same depth of incision for the first 11 letters;

2) same basic font for the first 11 letters (but close inspection will clarify the WAWs);

3) erratic font mixture over the last 9 letters;

4) dressed surface over the first twelve letters;

5) unified technique over the first 11 letters;

and as you'll remember there is more. And as I remember you have not dealt with the implications of any of these, though you have disputed #2.

So, you wanna talk about the inscription or about what's on your bookshelf?


spin

Haran

When you want to learn paleography so that you can deal with the inscription as I have, then let me know.

As I said, I've already dealt with the inscription in detail. However, in addition, I've used the tools any scholar would to better understand the inscription.

That is, the supposed "evidence" that you just keep repeating while compeltely ignoring the fact that I've addressed it (perhaps you just did not understand?).

So, fine, briefly, here we go again...let's try to make this the last because I have dealt with your points and simply disagree with you and your conclusions in many cases (whether or not you claim to have any experience at all in paleography).

I completely disagree and think this is flat untrue. I have already explained this. One example...PE is closer to the depth of the supposed "second half" of the inscription.

I disagree and you are only bringing up the waws after the fact because of Chadwicks' analysis.

The supposed "first half" is also somewhat erratic as I've stated. Also as I've stated over and over and over, there are similar examples among ossuaries. You have not and apparently cannot deal with this.

If you are referring to Altman's claim about the frame, then I disagree. Further, I think the difference that is there is due to weathering.

I disagree and have given reasons.

Aside from your rhetoric, I have dealt with them in detail, even providing scholarly references. I have not seen that you understand the letter forms or other inscription samples from ossuaries so that the "James Inscription" (which may I remind you for the umpteenth time that I have already addressed in detail) can be placed in its context.

I want to talk about the inscription in detail, similar to what I've been doing, only with someone who actually understands and is familiar with the paleography.

As I've said, and I'll say it one last time, I've addressed the inscription in detail over and over again and, in addition, I've provided scholarly references as is normally done when trying to understand an inscription. Oh yeah, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself because of the "you haven't dealt with this" comments when I most certainly "have dealt with this".

spin

Having a book of inscriptions doesn't mean you know anything about palaeography, does it, sunshine?

You've shown a remarkable effort of avoiding the inscription itself.

About the relatively uniform depth of the letters in the first part:

This of course is the one hope of an exception which proves the rule. You must be able to do more than repeat the one

Great logic.

Even Lemaire has accepted all but the YODs and WAWs as formal, though perhaps you might like to stick with your claim that ther PE is informal too. Now from your photos I can see indications that the YODs and WAWs were not just single downward strokes. Chadwick elucidates.

Your disagreement doesn't seem based on the inscription, others' analyses, or reality.

Your supposed erratic letters are not seen by anyone else, yet the erratic nature of the letters in the second half is seen by everybody.

I talked about the "dressed surface over the first twelve letters;" and Haran replied

No, I'm simply talking about a prepared surface. Look at your photos and explain the difference in coloration. Weathering of course should apply to the whole surface, not just the part which includes the first part, so you can happily forget that one.

As to the "unified technique over the first 11 letters" Haran writes:

Where and what did you say about the scribe's technique?? Perhaps you meant to.

Could you please cite what you've already said in this thread which you think deals with the above in detail. I think you are bullsh*tting.

What is your problem with my understanding of the letter forms?

If it's similar to what you've been doing then I don't think you'll find anyone. You've shown no willingness to look at what the scribe actually did or didn't do.




spin

spin

Here is a clearer photo of part of the inscription "yaqwb", which clarifies the first YOD and illuminates the first WAW somewhat.


spin

Haran

Wow...'sunshine'. Well, seems like a happy epithet, anyway. There is no point in responding further to the other fluff, and I've seen this picture before, thanks.

However, for my amusement, please point out the serifs on the yod and waw. Describe them for me, if you will.

spin

I should palm you off in the same manner you have my questions until you respond, but hell you're the one avoiding things, not me.

The YOD is clearly not a straight downstroke. It has been widened with a separate movement (from the right) in order to give it a head, so there have been two strokes involved in its formation.

I said that the WAW was illuminated somewhat, and that it was literally. It is shown to be clearly wider toward the top, but it also shows a very fine line at the very top from the left. Being only illuminated somewhat, it needs more to have a certain understanding of the letter formation.

So, I'm happy with the two YODs, as I've already commented on the second one and there is clearly a tittle from the left at the top. The WAWs are still unclear, but I won't rule them out, unless you've got a good picture to show them. Whatever the case with the WAWs, we have at least nine out of eleven letters as formal. Our scribe is quite consistent, unlike the second part of the inscription.


spin

Haran

Well, that's interesting. I wondered if you'd say that. Tell me, in what period did yods develop a serif to the right?

I think the serifs on the yods and waws are what others are desiring to see. If there is anything there at all, it is definitely not to the same obvious depth as on the bets, qoph, and resh. There are no serifs on the ayin, as was obvious from the picture of the name James as well.

It is a shame that the examples cannot be dealt with. They and/or others like them are probably what led Dr. Cross (if we can judge by his comments to Shanks and Lemaire) and Dr. Lemaire (whom I do not believe is involved in a conspiracy) to conclude that there is no reason to believe the inscription is in two hands. I believe I also remember Ada Yardeni initially supporting the authenticity of the inscription. Unfortunately, I have not seen some of the scholars I most respect (other than Lemaire) comment in any depth on the inscription. So much more could be gleaned from their participation, but it probably will not happen at this point. Their assessment would be much better than either of our amateurish opinions (even if mine is more well-informed and referenced ).

spin

Naturally enough.

The important thing is that the scribe hasn't used a single stroke, but given his YOD a head, indicating his intention that the letter is not a simple cursive. I gather you'd like to see a lambda-shaped YOD, but our scribe is working in a square formal script and prefers vertical strokes where possible, as they are easier to control. You don't find such control in the second part.

(Would you like to justify Cross's periodization, hmm?)

Your most respected Lemaire says that the AYIN "can be considered formal even if it appears sometimes in cursive script."

You might trust Lemaire generally, but you've shown no knowledge of script analysis. You seem more interested in mixing and matching in order to make such discordant letters as found in the second part seem more acceptible, hence your attempts to confuse issues regarding the scribal work in the first part, with the final goal of justifying a priori conclusions.


spin

Haran

Point is...if that is a serif on the initial yod, then why does the stroke go to the right? This is not a formal yod and there is no serif, note Lemaire whom you quote below.

Note the "can be considered formal" for both statements about the ayin and the pe. That means that I am not wrong in considering them to be cursive, but this does go against Lemaire's decision about them. However, I'm not sure whether he would say that my view of the letters is necessarily wrong.

I wouldn't be too quick to quote that Lemaire article from BAR if I were you, because it contradicts many of your own claims (take a look at the HET, inter alia), not to mention exposing the problems of the committee that worked on the James ossuary.

I'm afraid I find that you have shown no knowledge of script analysis, instead merely borrowing information from online articles and ideas from other scholars (but this is quite transparent). I seem to detect a certain justifying of your own position without regard to facts.

I must give you points for being able to spin with the best of them, though...um...spin. Truly no hard feelings on my part toward you (as if you care, I suppose), I just think you're wrong...

spin

It is not a cursive YOD. That is plain and simple. Otherwise explain the head. Incidentally, Lemaire says:

Yod (nos. 1, 8, 15, 17) is written as a simple, short, approximately vertical stroke without a small crook, hook or loop at the top; this shape is cursive.

But you can see that he is not correct about either of the first two YODs.

You were complaining that they weren't formal, when your guy plainly says they are.

I was being selective of what he says, as you have been rabid about the PE for no good reason. So note what your guy says about it and get over it.

Doh. It's not me, it's you!! Great argument there, Haran.

The thing that's transparent is your blatant denial of the the evidence which separates the two parts of the inscription. You come up with lame excuses like, the box is more weathered on one part of the side in order to explain the darker area around the first part of the inscription. Or your claim that there is no coherence of letters in the first part. Or your avoidance of the general similarity of depth of the first part. Or your avoidance of the fact that there are different font faces implied by the letters in the second part. All you're left with is attempted ad hominem.

Your detective work has come up pretty ineffective.

No reasoning, of course. Just wrong. A priori. It's sad really. Such a waste of time. You might get better value out of your source books if you sold them.


spin