[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."

Etc. etc.




Mike_Sanders@photoad.com (private e-mail)
BibleMysteries@photoad.com (web site e-mail)


-----Original Message-----
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 
numbers that
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 
supposed to
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 
reliable, the
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 
Jewish state.
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" 
reference we
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 
been writing
about the mother of God in 200 BCE?
  Well, if that's not enough, Mr. Altman and I now have an 
article being
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 
the inscriptions
and letters at the Foro romano, two buses away.  Adesso, 

  David Crowder
  El Paso