Vorkosigan

Not to shift the subject, but when they laid out a rock for inscribing, how did they ensure that the lines were uniform in length, straight, and uniformly spaced? Did they lay down a grid over it? Or what? I've seen stonecutters in India doing detail work freehand, but writing straight on a flat space is really really hard.

Vorkosigan

Haran

If there are no scored lines (which I believe to be the case with the Joash Inscription) then there may have been inked/painted lines (probably not a grid, if you're referring to vertical lines as well, though I could be wrong) which were erased. I believe that they may also have used flat pieces of wood (not unlike a ruler) for straight lines of text. I would imagine that many inscriptions were simply free-handed...

godfry n. glad

Maybe one for the ossuary itself and the other for the inscription?

godfry

Toto

Roger Viklund, who posts on the Jesus Mysteries List, has photoshopped a guide to the inscription here, demonstrating where it appears to have been written in two different hands:

The James Ossuary Inscription

Sauron

Except that their book isn't just a "discussion". If it's anything like their already-published comments, the book will state a affirmative conclusion about the authenticity of the ossuary.

Trying to generate discussion is one thing. Rushing to publish a book, before scientific inquiry has barely begun, is a totally different matter. That is what Shanks and Witherington are doing.

Oh, and as an example - see your comment below?

I think I'll wait until its arguments and discussion are generally known before passing judgment one way or the other.

Funny how you apply cautious wait-and-see attitude on the worth of the book itself, but cannot understand why Shanks/Witherington should take such an attitude with regards to the evidence surrounding the ossuary. Instead of doing so, they rush right out to publish a book, while interest is high and the buying public is eager for anything to read on it.

So it is for that reason that Shanks and Witherington are being criticized - and rightly so. Your attempt to re-characterize their effort as merely "discussion", instead of what it really was (i..e, presenting a premature conclusion), is transparent.

Toto

So who saw the History Channel last night?

The graphics got pretty annoying after a while, as if they were trying to fill up space and keep the gen-X'ers attention.

I would have loved to have seen what ended up on the cutting room floor from Eisenman's interview, but all in all it was not very favorable to the ossuary proponents. The featured expert opined that there were two handwritings, and the most likely explanation was that someone had added "brother of Jesus" later because they thought or "hoped" <wink wink> that the box contained James' bones. Then there were hints that a lot of the scholars thought that if it were James brother of THE Jesus, it would have said something clearer, such as James brother of Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus.

That of course left the Catholic father who hosted the program babbling like an idiot about "if" this proves true, it would be amazing. . .

Toto

Latest article from Charles Page, the Vice-president for Academic Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies, a training center for Christian clergy and laity.

(This article presents the evidence against authenticity, but it seems to be confined to Rochelle Altman's analysis.)

Haran

This from the Theologyweb forums...


Vork, I am seeing more and more rhetoric in your recent posts on the ossuary... Are you sure you're being unbiased and objective?


Dr. Altman wrote a very misleading statement in one of her reports that seemed to say Yardeni agreed with her. I commented on it in my article and she never responded. At the moment, I do not believe that Yardeni thinks the inscription is in two hands.

Naveh counts and so does Kenneth Kitchen. They both seem to view the inscription as being in two hands.

However, to dismiss Frank Moore Cross and Joseph Fitzmyer as "old and faith-committed" is rhetoric at its finest. These two scholars are excellent and well-respected scholars.

Dr. Cross is one of the most respected paleographers in the field (Dr. Lemaire is not all that far behind):


I have read the work mentioned in the quote and currently agree with Dr. Cross, who believes that the inscription is in one hand:


It would be hard for a good semitic paleographer to ignore this scholar's conclusions.


Roger has done a great job of illustrating general shapes of the letters in the ossuary inscription. However, by clipping the letters out of the picture, he has accidentally removed some important features and reshaped some of the letters.

He also does a good job of summarizing what he believes to be Dr. Altman's points about the ossuary inscription. However, there are still no references to back up some of the claims (e.g. written in sound bites, final letters are lowered, exteded final pe as "end-of-text marker" - where do these claims come from?? I'd appreciate it if someone would find out for me, since Dr. Altman will not repond.).

At least one of the points, the one about the extended final pe being an "end-of-text marker" just seems plain wrong. Certain letters have "final forms" which are used at the end of words (even if scripta contiua, I believe). This is a very basic fact and one that Dr. Lemaire alluded when addressing what he seemed to see as Dr. Altman's lack of familiarity with semitic paleography.


To my knowledge, Oded Golan has not been declared a forger or thief. Many collectors have valuable artifacts in their possession, such as Shlomo Moussaieff who owns many Biblically important seals and famous "Temple Receipt". This does not make either of them crooked.


This is not an unusual thing for scholars of any stripe to do.


This is unfair and I see no good reason to disregard this reputable scholar's opinion, especially when it coincides with that of one of the most eminent semitic paleographers, Frank Moore Cross.


This is more rhetoric, Vork. Darned if they do, darned if they don't... It doesn't leave open any possibility that they might just honestly come to the conclusion that the ossuary and its inscription are authentic.

Scholars in all fields seem very split at the moment. There is no real consensus and there seem to be good scholars who support different views. This may ultimately boil down to what you want to believe.

Whatever the case, it is wrong to leave the impression that the scholarly community has come to a consensus on the ossuary and its inscription being inauthentic.

Toto

I could only find second hand information (from Oded Golan and BAR) that Frank Moore Cross has looked at the inscription or given an opinion on it. Do you know any more?

Haran

Why?

I do not believe BAR lied. They would quickly be called on misrepresenting Cross's views.

That said, I too would like to see Dr. Cross' remarks elsewhere and in more detail.