I think the first place to look are precedents on pottery, shards, pithoi, etc...but with the common sense position that any inscription from Egypt dating to the first half of the first century could NOT refer to Jesus...Mika's suggestion makes a lot of sense.
Experts in Greek can certainly discuss the orthography and syntax, even the paleography and everyone benefits from their expertise. Regarding its authenticity, however, past experience has taught me that only materials and ceramological experts who are actually examining and holding the artifact in their hands can discuss the authenticity of the artifact. On that issue, even for casual e-forum discourse, I will include myself out. :) Jack Jack Kilmon San Antonio, TX ----- Original Message ----- From: Mika Kajava To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [PAPY] The inscription looks somewhat strange (as others have already said: firing, incision, hand, etc.), but whether or not it is a fake, has anyone considered = diakhristou? - Diakhriston "ointment" (and similar) is found in medical texts and recipes (at least from Dioscorides), but it is also well attested in later sources, e.g., in Aetius' (compilations of) medical writings. Incidentally, I note that among his innumerable recipes (and abbreviations as well as expressions of "recipe language") one frequently finds "gost./goist.", e.g., "elaiou kalou goist. etoi oug. is", "asprou goist.", etc. etc., but this may not be relevant for the present case. - O might stand for o(inou) [e.g. diakhristou, o(inou)... a(na) ic] rather than for a numeral...? - Needless to say, this is pure guesswork (and a lot depends on the dating of the text). -MK. ––––––––– Mika Kajava, PhD Professor of Greek Language and Literature Institutum Classicum P.O. Box 4 FIN - 00014 University of Helsinki tel. +358-9-191 22488 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
