Subject: Re: tc-list h*elp please

From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 15:19:31 -0500

Curt Niccum wrote, in response to Fred Miller:
 
> Thanks for your reply which is appreciated.  The letters ought to refer
to the NAME
> but they do not look like the name in Hebrew or Aramaic.
> What language are they written in?  The letters do not remotely resemble
the YHWH
> in Hebrew and there and there seem to be 5 characters.  If you have a
reference to
> any book in which they are described i would appreciate it. 

Any detailed study of the palaeography of the DSS should still begin with
the classic study of Malachi Martin (Yes, THE Malachi Martin that now
writes popular books on  sometimes controversial church matters), _The
Scribal Character of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ [only treats Cave 1] (Louvain,
1958), 2 volumes, numbered consecutively.  In the last five years or so
Emanuel Tov has written a number of articles on the physical
characteristics of the Qumran manuscripts.  I don' t have the full
bibliography at hand, but you might want to start with "Correction
Procedures in the Texts from the Judean Desert," pp. 232-263.  In _The
Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls_, SDTJ, 30, (EJ
Brill, 1999).

> Fred P Miller
> > I am new to this list so please be patient with me if I am not on the
right
> > track but I would like some help with an unusual notation in the Qumran
Great
> > Isaiah Scroll. 
> > Recently I magnified what I
> > thought were dots on scroll page 35
> > (http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-35.htm#dots)
> > where Q omits the NAME that is found in the received text.  And the
dots took
> > shape that is a miniturized notation with definite shapes

Martin suggests that the five dots are the remnants of an erased
tetragrammaton, inserted by scribe B (Martin's designation) and later
partially erased by scribe C.  Compare scribe B's two line insertion in a
fine hand in column 28.  (Martin, pp. 548-550)

Martin's proposal is reasonable, and cited by Tov in the Provo volume, if
not verifiable in the existing photos, even with digital enhancement. 
Martin, however, offers no explanation why scribe C decided to erase a well
attested reading or why it was only partially erased.  I checked the
Kodansha plates, which is slightly better here but does show some darkening
in this area.  I understand that a new edition of the scroll, with new
plates is in preparation (for the DJD series?).  This may help to decide
the case.

>> which defies the
> > imagination as to how they cound have been made so small in BCE 100 or
so.

Not so hard to believe, even if it is not partially erased.  The admittedly
much later Hebrew micrography in medieval manuscripts are models of
precision, probably using writing instruments not too much different than
those used at the turn of the era.  In another medium, there is also some
extremely small cuneiform writing.

Harold P. Scanlin
United Bible Societies
1865 Broadway
New York, NY  10023
[email-masked]

---

From: Fred P Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 16:06:04 -0500

Harold P. Scanlin wrote:

you wrote to suggest what the dots may be.  But you seem to offer differing
opinions of the nature of the "dots"

Are there two thoughts presented here by your comments?  That is 1. that the
dots are remnants of partially erased letters of the NAME.  Or 2. that the
microscopically small letters are very precise but reflect a technology
mastered earlier and illlustrated later in the middle ages,  It does not seem
to me that it can be both. Either one or the other perhaps but not both.  I am
of the opinion that the strokes have a precise form not resembling Hebrew or
Aramaic unless there are primitive alphabet scripts that I am not aware of that
would make the final two enscriptions resemble (if Hebrew)  what looks like a
heth or tau upside down  and the next to last marking resembles an oblique X
leaning to the left with elongated legs extending to the right,  If this is the
next to last letter in the partially erased tetragrammaton it should be waw and
it does not seem to bear any resemblance to waw.  As for erasures there do not
seem to be any places where residual strokes leave any evidence of having been
abraided while however there is some "bleeding" between the letters which would
be natural with such a small notation and would counter the idea of erasures
since the bleeding has not been abraided at all..  Thank you for the
Bibliography which I hope will prove helpful (if I can find the books),  I have
all of Martin's popular books predicting the imminent end of the Papal System
but none of his "tc" work.

--
Fred P Miller
For Bible Study Majoring in Isaiah
Http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller

---

From: Fred P Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 16:22:45 -0500

Harold P. Scanlin wrote:
fine hand in column 28.

the small hand of the scribe on scroll pag 28 just after line 18 is not
microscopic and can be read easily.  There was a mistake corrected (probably by
the original scribe) and there is a mistake in the correction that is corrected
by a later editor.  This is described here
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-28.htm  and it can be seen that the "small
hand" is still easily discernable Hebrew which the "dots" on page 35 are not..
I don't kow what they are but have an interest in knowing.

F Miller