Sat Nov 2 00:47:21 1996

From owner-tc-list  Sat Nov  2 00:47:21 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id AAA16208; Sat, 2 Nov 1996 00:46:25 -0500
Message-ID: <327AE117.5C78@accesscomm.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 1996 23:50:15 -0600
From: Jack Kilmon 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: More on 2427, family resemblances
References: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1779

James R. Adair wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 31 Oct 1996, Jack Kilmon wrote:
> 
> >       There seems to be a great parallel between textual criticism
> > and palaeoanthropology.  We are examining small fossil fragments and
> > speculating on a common ancestor...looking for the "Lucy" of
> > manuscripts.  Everytime a new fossil is discovered, we re-examine
> > the family (hominidae/Byzantine/Alexandrian) and it's genera, species
> > and sub-species as well as "tribes and clans."  Textual variants are
> > like genetic codes.
> 
> I see a parallel, too, between the search for a mitochondrial Eve and the
> search for the elusive archetypes of the gospels (and other books as
> well).  I have thought for some time about the possibility of using some
> of the algorithms used to trace the human genome to examine biblical
> mss.  Of course, I realize that the validity of some of those algorithms
> is disputed.  Still, it would be interesting to see what they would
> generate in terms of an archetype.

	I had the same thought..much like a taxonomic key used to
identify species.

> >       I wonder if the 11Q New Jerusalem fragments just might
> > represent a holotype for Revelation.
> 
> Could you elaborate some more?

	11Q New Jerusalem fragment 14 speaks of seven crowns (Rev 4:4-5)
and fragment 17, seven bowls.  Almost certainly the primary hope for
the discovery of the DSS was finding "Christian writings" but the very
idea is an anachronism.  With the exception of 7Q5, which I believe
is genuinely a fragment of Mark1 (perhaps the autograph), the most
we could expect is "pre/proto-Christian" writings which would hardly be
discernible from Jewish writings.  In this regard, the Testament
literature may be linked to the Yeshuine Jews.

Jack Kilmon
jpman@accesscomm.net

Back