by stillstuckcruz 39 Replies latest social current
Are there really any 'famed Watchtower scholars'?
I think this phrase (or more commonly 'celebrated Watchtower scholars') was originally used on this forum by a JW apologist who went by the name scholar mainly to refer to Rolf Furuli and anonymous Watchtower writers who support the 607 BCE date for the fall of Jerusalem. The phrase has since been appropriated and used ironically/mockingly by other board members in view of the clear lack of biblical scholarship among JWs.
What happened to him? Did he visit the board at all during the discussion of the recent Watchtower chronology articles?
He went the way of the Nananana
Maybe Bauckham is being accurately represented in the footnote (I'd prefer to hear from Bauckham himself that he agrees with the interpretation of the inscription), but he is not an epigrapher.
But he is a well respected biblical scholar who written about the divine name in relation to NT texts, in particular with regard to the book of Revelation. Presumably he is well aware of his own limitations as well as his areas of expertise, and if he decided to make a suggestion it was because he felt he had something worthwhile to contribute.
He makes a specific suggestion about why the iota may not look like a typical iota which relates to the fact that the same letter was being used to represent two different letters in Hebrew and were thus presented differently in Greek to reflect that. He may be wrong but it sounds like the sort of suggestion that is made as a result of some consideration of the problem and its situation. In other words not necessarily to be characterised as a ill-thought-out suggestion from a scholar who has strayed from his own field.
If the word is not a representation of the Tetragrammaton, are there other likely candidates for what it could mean?
I would still prefer to wait till Bauckham discusses the inscription himself, and in particular to respond to Rollston's persuasive argument that the first letter of line 2 is either a zeta or tau but definitely not an iota. I would also like to see an epigrapher show other examples of iotas written that way.
If the word is not a representation of the Tetragrammaton, are there other likely candidates for what it could mean?
As mentioned above, Rollston has noticed that ]TA on line two and OC[ at the end of line one spell OCTA, i.e. osta "bones (plural)". The rest of the message is difficult to read because of uncertainty in reading some of the letters and because of the common use of abbreviations in ossuaries, and Rollston doesn't hazard further guesses.
It might be worthwhile to compare the potential readings against the existing corpus of ossuary inscriptional texts. Pau Figueras in Decorated Jewish Ossuaries (1983) mentions one ossuary inscription identifying the bones contained in the box as "Bones of those of (personal name)", i.e. OCTA TΩN TOU <personal name> (p. 13), so one might expect the text that follows OCTA to pertain to the name, nickname, profession, or other identity of the deceased. Another example of this: EΞΩKIZΩNTON OCTA... (BH)Θ IZATΩN "Bones of immigrants, Izatus family" (p. 15). Or less plausibly OCTA could pertain to a resurrection hope for the bones. Figueras (p. 14) mentions the lengthy Latin epitaph on the tomb of a Jewish woman Regina that proclaims "Let her rise up into the promised age" (surgat in aevum promissum), and the UΨΩ used in connection with the hypothetical OCTA and AΓIΩ in this inscription might have some connection with a resurrection belief, although hupsò does not seem to be used in connection with bones per se in resurrection texts (there are no hits in TLG re osta/ostea used in the same sentence with forms of hupsò), though it would make sense in connection with the lifting of bones out of the ossuary. Figueras notes that inscriptions like that of Regina are not likely to occur in ossuaries "knowing the usual brevity of language on ossuaries and the almost absolute absence of an open resurrection belief on the old Jewish epigraphy on tombs" (p. 14). The ΔI preceding OCTA could maybe be interpreted as a form of dia (shortened to di' when preceding a noun with an initial vowel), or it could also be an abbreviation of a word starting with di(. One possibility is didumos "twin", a word attested on ossuaries of twin brothers (p. 15), ΔI(ΔΥMΩN) OCTA for instance would be "bones of twins", but I don't know if that kind of shortening is attested in the corpus. Following OCTA is a sequence IO or IOU. This too could be an abbreviation of a Hebrew name; Figueras mentions IOU on one ossuary as an abbreviation of IOU(ΔA) "Judas" (p. 14). IO( if it is an abbreviation might shorten IΩ- names like IΩCHC (in the Goliath family ossuaries IOEZPOC is interchangeable with IΩEZPOC "Jehoezer"). Hachlili (Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period, 2005) mentions that nicknames and abbreviated nicknames were common in ossuary inscriptions (pp. 232-233), which makes me wonder if an abbreviated nickname could lie in IOUΨΩAΓB (???), or whatever the actual text is.
Anyway these appear to be some extremely speculative possibilities by a layperson....the whole thing seems really uncertain to me without better readings of the inscription by experts, and the ossuary is not available for direct examination. I think it's too early to be certain on what the inscription says.
I hope Bauckham and others do say something about this in print. Maybe it's not a tetragrammaton, but doesn't the possibility excite you? Wouldn't it be amazing if JWs turned out to be right about the early Christians using the divine name?
Interesting stuff ...and I thank Leolaia for her diligent research.
If, like me , you find it all a tad complicated , you might try this report that was intended for a non scholarly audience :
Good news, Bauckham has provided a detailed analysis:
He says: "Rollston is an epigrapher. I am not, but I venture to say he is being far too dogmatic", and then he cites what I was hoping to see: examples of iotas similar form. I think the reading of that first letter is critical: its the main datum that divides the osta "bones" and tetragrammaton readings. I look forward to reading the discussion that follows between the experts.
Bauckham makes the suggestion that the text here identifies YHWH with Zeus, which is reminiscent of what I said in p. 1 of this thread re the reading of DIOC. His suggested translation: "Belonging to Zeus IAIO. I, Hagab, exalt (him/you)."
"If Bauckham’s preference (the Zeus reading) is correct, why that coupling may have been done receives considerable attention. Such conceptual linkages were not that unusual. It made me think of how, iconographically, Yahweh is associated with Sol Invictus in certain Jewish synagogues that have zodiac mosaics. Such a linkage need not be seen as an expression of the theological compromise of Yahwism (it certainly wasn’t in a synagogue). What is unusual in the present case is the coupling on an ossuary inscription. Bauckham also concludes that the inscription has nothing to do with Jesus or early Christianity. To date there is nothing in Talpiot B that does."
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2012/03/richard-bauckham-talpiot-inscription/
There's been some very interesting feedback on the "fish" image lately. Robert Cargill argues persuasively that the blow-up image of the fish in Tabor's PDF (Image #21) was incorrectly oriented and photoshopped, both in ways that helped enhance the interpretation of the image as a fish (the PDF was also revised after the fact to indicate the correct orientation):
http://robertcargill.com/2012/03/05/if-the-evidence-doesnt-fit-photoshop-it/
In response, Tabor wrote:
"...what I have said is that none of our photos have been altered, doctored, or photoshopped in any way. They are precisely the images the camera produced taken from the hundreds of hours of video tape and freeze frames taken during the actual process. That is what is false, plus the charge/implication that we are dishonest and manipulate evidence to try to fit a theory. Nothing has been touched. There is no single photo showing the entire image, however, by moving the robotic arm in all positions the complete image is visible. In addition to the photos, to allow people to see the entire image at once, there are CGI images produced by GE Information Technologies. These are clearly labeled as such (see thejesusdiscovery.org)" (http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2012/03/it-looks-like-fish-to-me.html).
But the PDF did not identify Image #21 as CGI, and I don't understand how Tabor says it was not altered or photoshopped in any way when it shows clear evidence of clone stamping (see [1] and [2]) and it removes things in the actual photos (the border around the image) and it shows things NOT visible in the released photos: the right corner of the "tail" depicted with a fishlike bend, contrary to their replica reconstruction and obstructed in all of the released images of the ossuary. And this sketch on the official website even states that the view of the corner of the "tail" was obstructed:
Also Tom Vereena has noticed what might be handles on the side of the image from the "fins" to the "tail". And there is a 1981 photo of the other side of the ossuary that shows what Tabor and Jacobovici have labelled a "big tail" of a half-fish but which resembles images of amphora on other ossuaries. And Mark Goodacre has examined this image in closer detail and finds "handles" on that image as well, and notes: "These apparent images of handles greatly detract from the plausibility of the idea that this is a "half-fish" and, at the same time, this detracts from the plausibility of the interpretation of the image on the front of the ossuary as a fish. It is worth bearing in mind that there are ossuaries that feature more than one amphora, and so the presence of a vase on the side of the ossuary makes it all the more likely that it is also some kind of vase on the front". And it is also noteworthy that the lines of the "handle" between the "tail" and the border (seen in this photo) are not visible in the controversial "photoshopped" image.
