Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] New BAR on James bonebox

Expand Messages
  • John C. Poirier
    Thanks, Mark. I ll not go on and on about a non-Synoptic Problem topic, but just mention something I should have said yesterday: Shanks (in the Jan.-Feb. 2003
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 21, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Mark.

      I'll not go on and on about a non-Synoptic Problem topic, but just mention something I should have said yesterday: Shanks (in the Jan.-Feb. 2003 *BAR*) actually associates the two-hands view with someone who (having never seen the inscription in real life) claimed that the letters were raised rather than depressed, thus associating the two-hands view
      with a bit of quackery.

      You should take a look: it's a shameless piece of rhetoric.


      John C. Poirier
      Middletown, Ohio


      "Matson, Mark (Academic)" wrote:

      > John:
      >
      > I agree with you... it seemed fairly plain. I know Eric Meyers is convinced their are different hands. In fact many were surprised that more sophisticated equipment had not been used to gauge the depth of inscriptions. It appeared to me that the "Jesus" part of the inscription was much lighter, not nearly as deep in the stone, as the "James" part.
      >
      > But I think Hershel is already too deep into his commitment for this to extract himself now.


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.