Re: [Synoptic-L] The Aramaic-Greek transition (resent with signature)
- Thanks for this, Dennis. Good to hear from you. (I'm ready to go back to that
It seems to me that the language of the James ossuary would have been dictated
by James' followers, or possibly his family. Certainly, the decision to have
any inscription at all was probably not in the hands of the stonecutter (about
70% of the ossuaries in Rahmani don't have any inscription at all), so
presumably the decision as to what language to use would have been made by
whoever decided to have an inscription. But even if it was the stonecutter who
decided to use Aramaic, that still counts *in some way* as linguistic evidence
for the first century. (Unless, of course, the last half of the inscription
[which was written by a different writing instrument] was added a century or so
later, and if we allow that *bar* could be colloquial Hebrew, in which case we
would only have evidence for Aramaic in the second century.) Like everything
else in history, it all boils down to probability.
Unfortunately, it appears that a lot that should have been said about this
ossuary was left out of the *BAR* article.
John C. Poirier
Dennis Sullivan wrote:
> More precisely, the ossuary proves that the family's stonecutter spokeSynoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> Aramaic--unless Ya'akov had the foresight to engrave his own ossuary
> inscription before his death. The ossuary may have been prepared as long as
> a year after his demise.
> I originally mentioned this in jest at our luncheon with David Bivin last
> November, but the logic works.
> Dennis Sullivan
> Dayton Ohio
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...