by LostGeneration 31 Replies latest watchtower bible
LOL!
I count 10 scrolls in the bags or hands of those cartoon preaching guys.
So they were hauling around $12,000 worth of literature in bags casually slung over their shoulders?
Uh-huh. Right.
And undoubtedly the householders were happy to contribute to the "worldwide work".
...they don't make the eyebrows high enough on these emoticons....
Gayle said:
I expect the WTS got a lot of flak about their 'cartoon' in the DVD and the reason for their comment, though not admitting to anything, of sort here.
I thought possibly the same thing - given how ridiculous that illustration was.
I sure hope some practising witness was willing to call them out on this. But, more likely some fader.
Good catch, LostGeneration!
So, the subject of quote is about books, not scrolls!
"Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus," Chapter 6, "Who Read and Who Wrote," page 165:
"It is very difficult to estimate the price of a book, but if a roll of Isaiah, a long one (see Chapter 1, p. 26), took two to three days to complete, then a little over three days' wages might be an appropriate figure, plus the cost of the roll.
… and that may be an exemplary rather than a real figure, and we may suppose a scribe might expect a slightly higher rate, we can guess at a price of six to ten denarii for a copy of Isaiah. While that is not cheap, it would not put books out of the reach of the reasonably well-to-do."
No wonder the esteemed Watchtower scholars chose this author, note how he writes: but if, might be, may be, we may suppose, might expect, we can guess.
Prof. Millard's distinction between scrolls and earliest Christian books is further fleshed out in an interview here.
THE TURNING: Now, we talked about earlier that people were writing things down on waxen tablets as well as if something really mattered, they put it down on scrolls, but of course the Christian tradition has Bibles. It has books. How did that transition happen? Why didn’t we have a bunch of scrolls?
MILLARD: It seems the book with pages was beginning to be used in the 1st century. There’s a Roman writer called Marshall, who says to his friends, this idea of having books written on pages rather than scrolls is very convenient if you’re traveling; it’s easier to use such a book. It’s also more economical because scrolls were usually only written on one side whereas with a book, you use both sides of the page. This sort of book seems to been used for possibly technical handbooks in the 1st century. And in the 2nd century, there are just a few examples from Egypt of Greek literature written in this form and they are mostly legal texts and things like that. It’s possible that it is a form of book that’s more common in Rome than in Egypt in the 1st and 2nd centuries, but we simply don’t have any examples from Rome. The ones found in Egypt might be written outside the country. It’s impossible to tell and I think the Christians thought this was a very convenient, economical form of book. They may also thought that it was less likely to draw attention to itself than a scroll in situations where Christianity, being the illegal religion, owners of Christian books might well be persecuted.
THE TURNING: So it’s sort of the original pocketbook, in a sense?
MILLARD: Yes.
Again, note how he speaks:
It seems, seems to be, possibly, it's possible, might be.
It's impossible to tell, may also, might well.
~Sue
This is an intereting book. I think this quote completly blows the whole argument.
"Moreover it was not literature that had the greatest missonary effect in the first and second centries, but Jewish and christian preachingm oral disscussins and personal testimony in word and action, encounters which led to participation in the synagogue services or meetings of the christian community."
The well-known Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah
is almost 24 feet (7.3 m) in length. With a
rod at each end and often with a cover for
protection, a scrollwould be heavy. Probably
most Christians could not carry many with
them for preaching. Even if Paul possessed
some scrolls of the Scriptures for his personal
use, he likely could not take on his travels
all the scrolls he owned. Evidently he left
some with his friend Carpus inTroas.
This is just for emphasis. It is already at the beginning of this thread. BUT first they mention a 24 foot scroll and then "most christians could not carry many with them". Well, no shit dick tracy. Are they using totally inept dodo brain idiots in writing or what??
The well-known Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah is almost 24 feet (7.3 m) in length. With a rod at each end and often with a cover for protection, a scroll would be heavy. Probably most Christians could not carry many with them for preaching. Even if Paul possessed some scrolls of the Scriptures for his personal use, he likely could not take on his travels all the scrolls he owned. Evidently he left some with his friend Carpus in Troas.
Lots of speculation. There is no evidence that Paul would have used scrolls at all in preaching. The description of his preaching in Acts is wholly oral, and there he frequently quotes in his speeches OT texts, sayings of Jesus (one of which is an agraphon), and even statements by Greco-Roman writers and thinkers.
The WT illustration of people carrying many scrolls presumably to leave with householders is also an anachronism drawn from modern JW practice.
Florigelia were small scrolls or papyri containing selections of scriptural texts to be used for a given purpose. There are florigelia among the Dead Sea Scrolls, one containing citations of various OT prophetic texts. These are very small, not at all comaprable to the Great Scroll of Isaiah. If Christians carried a scroll to be used in preaching, that would be the sort of thing that would be used. But the preacher would have to be literate and most relied oral preaching of texts from memory. Various scholars examining the citation of OT passages in the NT and the early fathers have concluded that they are cited from memory, or from florigelia of frequently cited (such as christological) passages (e.g. the testimonia theory of Rendell Harris).
In the case of Philip the evangelist in Acts 8, the scroll of Isaiah belonged not to Philip (the preacher) but to the Ethiopian who was returning from worshipping at Jerusalem, and the passage portrays him quite well-to-do.
Ooh!! Florigelia sounds soo sexual!!
How can the faithful and discreet slave class trust Professor Alan Millard?
He also states that Jerusalem was attacked by Babylon in 587! Surely he is not a reliable source.
At present archaeological excavations in Jerusalem have not discovered traces of the Assyrian siege or of an Assyrian capture. Clear signs have been found of the Babylonians' attack in 587 B.C.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/archaeology_millard.pdf
Wannabefree!!! That's great!!!! LOL!!!!
Desi
Who cares how many scrolls were carried....They were preaching......Thats all that matters.. So If dont carry as many mags per scrolls will I not make in to the new sysytem?!?!?!?! hahahahahahahaha Just saying...
