[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

orion Two Birds with One Posting (3 screens)

David Crowder wrote: "how could these documents have been sealed up
in 68 CE?"

What is the basis for the assumption that the documents were sealed for
all time in 68 CE?  Do we have any document stating this anywhere among
the texts? This seems to be yet another of those unexamined givens stated
in the early years of the DSS studies and neither justified nor supported.

Those "seals" were as permanent as the paraffin seals on home-canned
goods. Wax "sealed" documents can be unsealed and resealed. We have
evidence from impeccable sources, such as Origen and Jerome, that
documents were, in fact, "unsealed" and - let's say it straight - stolen.
We should be grateful that the unknown who wrote those marginal comments,
re-rolled those scrolls, and put them back instead of taking them away as
so many others did.

As far as finding evidence for Christian hands in the scrolls, this may
sound a bit naive, but what would people trying to produce a competetive
"official" book (the MMT) want with divergent texts?  Who else would we
expect to find in later insertions except Christian hands?  Origen, in
his search for evidence to use in his arguments with the Rabbis, makes
it rather clear that it was the early Christians who made use of the
"variant" scrolls.

Steven G.,

Writing instruments and inks will depend upon the most readily
avilable materials in a given area.

In Northern Europe they used reeds and quills, depending upon the
desired product. (For example, Merovingian Chancery is written with
quills, formal books with reed pens). They used iron as a base for
black inks. (Oak galls are common, but there are other recipes.)
The ink making process was time consuming and produced a blue-black
ink. Iron inks fade and eat into the parchment. Iron inks can be dated.

In the Near Eastern areas of the Mediterranean Basin, they used reeds.
While feathers certainly were available, reeds were everywhere and cheap.
They used carbon-based inks. Carbon inks are cheap, permanent, and quite
viscous. They are easy to make and produce a true black ink. Carbon inks
are not suitable for quills (too viscous). Unlike iron-based inks, carbon
inks cannot be dated. (Hmm, if we try, we might get a meaningless date
back in the carboniferous period. :-))

We can learn nothing from the ink. It will be the same. We may be able to
learn something from the pen width, but this is highly unlikely as the
width of a pen depends to a great extent upon the most common reeds
growing in a given area. The most common reeds will be used for everyday
writing; thicker reeds will be chosen for formal book hands. Any scribe
could cut a pen on the spot - it was part of his or her training. If the
most common reeds that grew in the area were used for these marginal
characters and the "corrections," the pen width will probably be the
same. (The flora didn't change all that quickly.)

As far as the symbols, as has already been pointed out by Dr. Weis,
there are no symbols in common. Ductus can tell us nothing. If C-14
places Isaiah early and Dr. Mair places the Chinese characters late,
there is no contradiction. It only indicates that these insertions and
corrections by the same hand are later. It adds no further information
about the date of the original text.

Incidentally, the comparison of Isa with the Justinian is quite
appropriate. The reason people ignored the "squiggles" as scribal
practice strokes is not only because the average Latinist does not
know Hebrew, but because the Hebrew symbols appear at first to have
been written with the same pen. (It's not the same pen.)



Dr. R. I. S. Altman                                  RISA@CONCENTRIC.NET      
Voice/FAX: 602-834-6640                                   XNK@DELPHI.COM