Subject: Re: tc-list help please

From: "Harold P. Scanlin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 17:22:51 -0500

Fred Miller asked,

> 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 illustrated later in the middle ages,  It does not
seem
> to me that it can be both.

You are right, both theories can't be right.  I only intended to say that I
favor explanation 1, but even if they are micrography (not necessarily
microscopically small) that is probably technologically possible. 

>  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..

This is all possible, but the condition of the published plates prevents
definitive conclusions.  Martin offers at least a plausible case for
remnants of the required letters, in Qumran orthography, for the
tetragrammaton.

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