[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: orion Re: Norman Golb
Jack Kilmon wrote:
> > For example, so he said Qumran had a "scriptorium." Surely,
> > the tables can be discussed. But can we recall that, e.g., Sir A. Gardiner,
> > already before Qumran discoveries, used the term for more ancient scribal
> > houses? (Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 24, 1938, 157f.) As for a "fiction
> > of scholarship," please let us remind ourselves, for example, who was in on
> > the so-called "Essene hypothesis" conspiracy-- Sukenik and Trever, Yadin
> > and Brownlee, de Vaux and Allegro, Strugnell, Vermes, Sowmy, Milik,
> > Dupont-Sommer, Samuel, Wilson, Gaster, and Golb's teacher Albright. If we
> > could bring then in a room today, would they all even be civil to one
> > another? Some conspiracy!
>
> Bill Albright part of a conspiracy? I'd sooner believe the Pope was
> theHillside Strangler (g).
>
> The issue of the tables, however, is interesting since my understanding
> of their architecture does not conform to a "scriptorium" table. I have
> asked this question before with no responses and will ask again. If
> these tables were use over decades for the penning of texts, there would
> almost certainly be evidences of that through microscopic analysis
> of the table surfaces..minute ink spots, for example.
>
> Has anyone on the archaeological team performed a microscopic
> examination of the table surfaces, and if not, why not?
I don't know the answer to that, but the first time I saw a photo of these
"tables" I could see, even in some very poor reproductions of the photos, what
certainly appear to be - forgive my crassness - butt-prints on them. There
appear to be distinctive patterns of discoloration and possibly wear that are
just the size and shape of a person's back end. How anyone could miss the
obvious conclusion that these were benches, not tables, is one of life's little
mysteries IMO.
--
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
"Oh, the mind boggles!" -Wakko