[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: orion Newsday piece
As the publisher of Lucas "Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Industries" may I quote from page 362.
"The ink was in the form of small cakes of solid material,
resembling, except in shape, modern water-colours, and was
generally of two kinds, black and red, the latter being
used for the rubrication of headings, notes etc......"
"Garstang reports carbon and red ochre respectively for the
black and red colours on a palette of Middle Kingdom date."
"Laurie found the colours on an Egyptian palette dating
from about 400 B.C. to consist respectively of charcoal,
red ochre, gypsum, blue frit and yellow oxide of lead."
Mike_Sanders@photoad.com (private e-mail)
BibleMysteries@photoad.com (web site e-mail)
From: David Crowder [SMTP:DCROWDER@compuserve.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 9:45 PM
To: Orion Center
Subject: orion Newsday piece
I've been admonished for posting the Newsday html piece
on the list. My
apologies. Asia Lerner requested it and I saw the return
address was the
one we used to use in posting (pre panda), so I thought it
would go to an
administrative address -- not the list. Didn't mean to
impose on any one.
While I'm here, I will say Mr. Altman and I shall be
responding to Dr.
Goranson and the red ink issue, here and elsewhere. But if
I am not
mistaken, the fragments with red ink shown in color in DJD
for the first
time are not really identified with anything other than PAM
refer to the photos themselves. The DJD series and the new
book on red ink
in the scrolls were not published until 1996, which is 49
years and change
after the first discoveries of the scrolls, Cross' 1956
We relied on some pretty good people for that
information, and there will
more to say. Two questions, though: Was the Egyptian use
of cinnabar at
any time remotely close to the period when the scrolls were
have been written? We are told not. And, we understand the
red ink in the
scrolls is not cinnabar. Is that significant?
As for Mr. West, out here we'd just say que no tiene
madre. But I will
only wonder aloud why, if the scrolls are so indisputably
Jewish Bible publishers are not making the changes that
publishers of the
Christian versions of the Old Testament are?
The scrolls are, after all, Jewish texts treasured by the
We have only checked with the top English-language
publisher of Orthodox
and Conservative Jewish religious texts in North America.
So I will ask,
have the Hebrew Bibles published in Israel have been
altered on the basis
of the DSS? A sixth book of Moses, anyone?
I recall no one really dispensed with the "mother of God"
heathens stumbled upon at 7:11 in the Isaiah scroll,
especially after the
message from the writer in Oslo who said two 12 year olds
had easily read
it that way. Are we stupid to ask who could possibly have
about the mother of God in 200 BCE?
Well, if that's not enough, Mr. Altman and I now have an
published here and there on the Son of God text, 4Q246,
quoting one rabbi
as saying, "I am convinced that a Jew of that time (25
BCE) didn't write
this. It's not a Jewish way to refer to a messiah, and I
don't believe a
Jewish source would ever use that phrase." The phrase, of
referring to the son of God.
Having said far too much, I will say one thing more
toward Mr. West: I
learned my Latin as a teenager in a school where our
assignments came not only from Caesar's letters but from
and letters at the Foro romano, two buses away. Adesso,