[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion 4Q246 Son of God
[The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set]
[Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-8" character set]
[Some characters may be displayed incorrectly]
On April 25, Stephen Goranson wrote:
>David Crowder and Neil Altman, in their article published in the
>Minneapolis Star Tribune March 28 this year, wrote, "The Son of God text
.contains long-ignored Hebrew vowel marks and words written in tiny
>neither of which came into use until centuries after 25 BC, the year that
>scroll scholars speculate the Son of God text was written."
> David, would you care to explain what has been ignored and how this
>provides a dating?
I will answer from my layman's understanding of these points. As I have
couched before, I am not the academic half of this collaboration, though I
have been involved in extended conference inverviews involving Altman and
other scholars on these matters. I try to take notes, make sure the tape is
running, ask the stupid questions and then help with the writing, editing
and rewriting. Ok?
Altman has found what appear to be Masoretic vowel markings in a good
number of the scrolls -- both above and below the letters. He has
confirmed these with other scholars, including Hayim Sheynin, a Hebrew
paleographer at Gratz College, who is quoted in the extended-version of our
piece on the Son of God text.
He is one of those who has said the above-and-below vowel markings
(Palestinian?) do not come into usage until the 8th century CE or so.
Sheynin also confirmed the presence of micrography in 4Q246 and
elsewhere. I have seen the blow ups and what appear to be strange, often
western looking letters and numerals, in other scrolls as well. They seem
to be pretty common -- sort of like bacteria on your kitchen counter (but
you've got to look first). From interviews and written sources, Altman
reports that micrography is not known to have come into usage until the
13th or 14th centruy CE.
I interviewed Joseph Fitzmyer on this and other matters and reported in
the article that in the time he spent studying 4Q246, he never saw the
markings we're referring to. But we're getting used to that.
So I will ask back if anyone on this list has come across very small
non-Hebraic letters or number written between the lines in any of the
scrolls? And can anyone date this practice as BCE?
The issue of red ink continues to come up and the most scientific
explanation cited so far seems to be Dr. Goranson's reference to the report
in Archaeometry. I am sitting on Altman's three-page, point-by-point
refutation of that piece, but I doubt I can get posted here under the new
Chemistry aside, I have heard from at least one person privately who said
the traditional Jewish injunction against copying biblical texts in any
color but black cannot be relied upon. That may be, but it stood and was
understood for many centuries. The Archaeometry piece was useful in that
it led us to the fact that there were texts written in other colors as
well. So, given the fact that CE copists who were believers in Jesus (in
lieu of that near-forbidden term) would have had no compunction about using
the kind red, blue or green inks found in Qumran texts, it is hard for us
to be convinced by the lack of a "contemporaneous" rule found at Qumran on
black ink -- or red, green and blue ink for that matter -- if that makes