Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Manuscript Notes: Page 47

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    Note: Since my Organizational Obsessive Disorder has kicked in, I ve started a new thread for discussions relating to Page 47. Correspondence posted in the
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 7, 2010

      Note: Since my Organizational Obsessive Disorder has kicked in, I’ve started a new thread for discussions relating to Page 47. Correspondence posted in the “Page 32” thread are referenced here:












      Mike Wrote:




      ||I admit it's not likely, but it should be noted that the difference between the

      ||number of letters in 47:1-8 and the average number of letters in 8 lines

      ||elsewhere in the text (at about 24.5 letters per line) is approximately equal to

      ||a full (normal) line, so that it's possible that the 8 lines atop page 47 would

      ||have taken up 7 lines in the normal script. Which means that it's just barely

      ||possible that the same scriptor that wrote the rest could have shifted gears at

      ||that point and started lettering more ornately and leaving more space

      ||between letters so that

      ||8 lines could be made out of 7. (Or alternately, to compensate for a removed

      ||line without overly disturbing the overall line numbering.)


      Nothing it outside the realm of possibility, for sure. On the other hand, it would take a powerful lot of persuading to convince me that lines 1-8 are not the product of someone different from the person who penned the subsequent lines. Although I’m not a paleographer by any stretch of the definition, and although I have only recently started examining the page of the MS, it seems impossible **not** to see a second hand at work here. There is more going on than merely the size of the letters or their spacing. It seems to me like the orthography itself is vastly different.  Perhaps most noticeable is the shape of the E in Lines 1-8 compared to the lines that follow. Notice that the center bar on each E in the first lines terminates with a nifty little dot, right on the end of the bar. In addition, it appears that the Y’s are formed quite differently. In the first set of lines it appears that they were written as a stroke down and to the left, then a second stroke was made upward and to the left from midpoint on the first stroke. In the lines below, the Y seems to have been written with a down-stroke and then an immediate upstroke from the bottom of the Y. In addition, the slope of the 2 is different in Lines 1-8 than it is in subsequent lines. Then there is the matter of the filler “:”( I think that is what that is, anyway) at the end of line 7 and the strike out of 2  on line 6. It seems odd to have this many anomalies in just 8 lines of text, and since there is a large lacuna obliterating parts of every single one of lines 1-8, who knows what other oddities were in the undamaged text.


      ||The justification for

      ||such an unlikely scenario is that the scenario wherein a second scribe was

      ||brought in for eight lines, then summarily let go, is also unlikely.


      Well, maybe, but it looks to me like there was a second scribe and it is **not** unlikely he/she was probably “summarily let go” for sheer incompetence (IMHO).


      Best Regards,


      Rick Hubbard



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.